tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Mar 20 16:18:56 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: KLBC Clipped vs not
- From: "Marc Paige"<[email protected]>
- Subject: RE: KLBC Clipped vs not
- Date: Thu, 20 Mar 1997 18:02:18 -0500
jatlh SuStel:
>>>
> Hu' puS jIghItlh <qoSlIj yIQuch>
> poD mu'tlhegh
> <qaStaHvIS 'oH qoSlIj 'e' yIQuch> 'oH mu'tlhegh'e' naQ
> bolaj'a'
ghobe'.
Your first sentence is ungrammatical, as I explained in another post. You
cannot explain it away as being Clipped Klingon, because that's not how
Clipped Klingon works. In Clipped Klingon, you generally remove excessive
prefixes and sometimes suffixes, but not entire words. Even if you DO
remove
phrases like {qaStaHvIS} (which isn't too unbelievable), your sentence is
simply wrong. {Quch} cannot take an object.
{'e'} is an object. It's a third-person singular pronoun, grammatically
identical to {'oH}. You cannot say "be happy that" anymore than you can
say
"be happy it." You CAN say "Be happy because today is your birthday," or
"Be
happy because of your birthday," but your two sentences above don't work.
Also, about clipping. We see at least one sentence with {'e'} clipped:
{bIjatlh 'e' yImev} becomes {jatlh 'e' mev}. All you do is remove the
prefixes here, you don't remove the {'e'}. Although *{jatlh mev} looks
like a
logical extension, it may not be. Otherwise, I'm sure we'd hear *{jatlh
mev}
instead of {jatlh 'e' mev}.
<<<
lu'
toH jIghItlhnIS <qoSlIj 'oH jajmo''e' yIQuch>
DaH jIlugh'a'
As for the clipping, I was thinking of <nuqDaq 'oH puchpa''e'> to <nuqDaq
puchpa'>
This is from memory since I don't have my TKD handy.
SI'IluD
wa'Hu' jIboghbe'