tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Dec 16 12:08:10 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC Challenge: similar suffixes
- From: "Robyn Stewart" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: KLBC Challenge: similar suffixes
- Date: Tue, 16 Dec 1997 12:08:59 PST
- Organization: NLK Consultants, Inc.
- Priority: normal
Doneq wrote:
>ghItlh Qov
>
>> }vummoHwI'wI' ghaH.
>> }He's my employer.
>>
>> val. wa' mu'Daq cha' mojaq Dalo'ta'. :)
>Dachaw'be' bIjatlhbe' :)
>
>(Still not certain... is this the right use for {jatlh}?)
{jatlh} is in the right place: it can go either before or after
the words attributed. And you have correctly used a no-object
prefix. You should, however, say exactly the words I did, would have
or didn't say before the {bIjatlh}.
{vIchaw'be' bIjatlhbe'} "You didn't say you didn't allow it."
>> }pumpu' naghpu'.
>> }Rocks have fallen.
>>
>> jatlhlaH'a' naghmeyvetlh?
>
>nuqjatlh? vIyajbe'.
The suffix {-pu'} is used only to form the plural of nouns that use
language, i.e. people. {pumpu' loDpu'} "the men have fallen" but
{pumpu' naghmey} "the rocks have fallen. DaH Dayaj'a'?
>> I'd read {muHaqmo' HaqwI'} as "because the surgeon
>> performs/performed surgery on me" and use {muHaqlI'mo'} for "is
>> performing" or "was performing." You're talking about this proces
>> going on at the time at which the event, you're not being able to
>> move, occurs.
>
>Yes, but the {-lI'} had to go in the other sentence :)
You can have as many suffixes as needed on one verb or noun, as long
as you don't have two suffixes of the same type. No need to ration
your suffixes.
>> }And now for the grand finale:
>> }
>> }vummoHwI''a'lI' vIDalI'mo' jupwI'pu'mo' je bIHoH'eghpu' 'e'
>> }DanID'a'?
>> }
>> }Have you tried to kill yourself because of my friends and because
>> } was busy to behave as you great employer?
>>
>> Here you have tried to link a noun + {-mo'} and a verb clause in
>> {-mo'} with a noun conjunction and it doesn't quite work. Gallant
>> try, though. :)
>>
>> }(I know, {bIHoH'eghpu'} should be better with a {-ta'} suffix,
>> }{vIDalI'mo'} with a {-taH} suffix, but hey, I had to put
>> }those {-pu'} and {-lI'} suffixes *somewhere*... :)
>>
>> Good comments. The {-pu'} is ok, but the {-lI'} i really hard to
>> support there. I don't think the "busy" translation works as well
>> here.
>
>Maybe I was doing it on purpose, because I don't like you :)
qechvetlh vIqelbe'pu'.
- Qov