tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Jun 04 16:54:08 1997

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

RE: {mup} KLBC

jatlh peHruS:

> chay' nIbbe' mu'mey {mup} {qIp} je 'e' vISovchu'be'

I'm not sure why you have labeled this KLBC, peHruS, unless you want me to 
examine your grammar.  Certainly, this is not considered beginner-level 
Klingon.

In the sentence above, you have used a question as object sentence.  There's 
nothing to say that this is right or wrong, except for our instincts.  Mine 
say it's wrong.  There's always a way to say things without resorting to 
questions as the object.

Just simply asking {chay' nIbbe' <mup> <qIp> je?} should be enough.

> "hammer" 'oS mu' {mupwI'} 'ach chay' mu' {mup} lo' MO

I begin to wonder if rhetorical questions are part of the Klingon psyche.

> "hit (with fist, instrument) 'oS mu' {qIp} tlhIngan Hol mu'ghomDaq 'e' 
qonta'
> MO

Here, you have used a Type 7 verb suffix on the second verb of a Sentence As 
Object construction.  This is not allowed.  You'd need to move the {-ta'} to 
{'oS}.

Actually, I don't know if {-ta'} is really the correct choice.  I think {-pu'} 
might be more suitable.  You're trying to make the point that it's there, and 
using {-ta'} makes it seem like Okrand set out to do this very thing, and 
succeeded.  But his adding this particular phrase was not a particular goal.  
It just happens to have happened.

> tlhIngan tIgh:  SuvwI' DevmeH paqDaq <<yIQeqQo' neH, DoS yIqIp!>> tu'lu'mo',
> vaj 'oSchuqbe' mu'tlhegh {Doch qIp Doch} {Doch mup Doch} je

"Do not represent each other" is an interesting idea, though I'd probably have 
stuck with {rapbe'}.

> nIbbe'bej mu' {paw'} je

This means "A word and {paw'} are definitely not identical."  If the {je} is 
supposed to mean "also," it must follow the verb.  {nIbbe'bej je bIH <paw'> 
je}.

I really don't think adding the word {mu'} before every quoted word is 
necessary.  It sounds like you're just mirroring the English, which does it a 
lot.  Besides, what if {mu'} is supposed to come *after* the word?

> ghochwIj:  chay' wot {mup} wIlo'

Metaphorical, but understandable.

For those of you who've had trouble with this, peHruS is asking how the words 
{mup} and {qIp} are different.  I'm not sure there is a difference; these may 
be like the various possibilities for "warrior" which we know.

peHruS, do *you* think there's a difference?  What do you think that 
difference is? 

-- 
SuStel
Beginners' Grammarian
Stardate 97426.2

Back to archive top level