tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Nov 04 11:47:26 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: Mole's tale
- From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>
- Subject: RE: Mole's tale
- Date: Tue, 4 Nov 97 19:46:31 UT
'ey lutlIj 'ach . . .
I liked your story, however . . .
[email protected] on behalf of Scott Murphy wrote:
> You probably noticed that I use the sentence "chay' qaSpu' 'e' luSovbe'".
[...]
> Using question words as
> objects of "'e'" constructions is a natural way to express certain ideas.
> If it weren't, nobody would be doing it.
jIQoch! chaq DIvI' Hol jatlhwI'vaD motlh QubmeH mIwvam, 'ach Hoch jatlhwI'vaD
motlh 'e' Daj ngoDHeyvam.
I disagree. This might be a normal way of thinking for English speakers, but
that doesn't prove that all languages work this way.
<chay' qaSpu' 'e' luSovbe'> bIjatlhnISqu'be'. <chay' qaSpu'> bIjatlhlaH.
<qatlh qaSpu'> <qaSpu'bogh wanI' luyajbe'> <chay'> pabbogh mu'tlheghmey
law' tu'lu'.
You don't *need* to say <chay' qaSpu' 'e' luSovbe'.> You can say <chay'
qaSpu'> "How did it happen?" <qatlh qaSpu'> "Why did it happen?" <qaSpu'bogh
wanI' luyajbe'> "They don't understand what happened." ("They do not
understand the event which has occurred.") <chay'> "What's going on?" There
are lots of grammatical sentences.
> There exists a possibility that
> Klingon will evolve into two dialects: one based on canon and Okrand's
> explanations, and one based on the actual, practical usage.
pab'e' neH 'angpu'bogh Okrand reH vIlo' 'e' vInID. jIjatlhmeH motlh qay'be'
pab wISovbogh. pab chu' poQbe'lu'. pab chu' 'angchugh Okrand qabbe' pab 'ach
poQbe'lu'.
I try to always use grammar which Okrand has revealed to us. I usually have
no trouble speaking with the grammar we know. We don't need new grammar.
It's not bad if Okrand gives us some, but we don't need it.
SuStel
Stardate 97844.8
latlh: yIloy: QInvamDaq DIvI' Hol mu'tlheghmey vIghItlhpa' tlhIngan Hol
mu'tlheghmey vIqon''a'?
P.S.: Take a guess: did I write the Klingon sentences before or after the
English sentences in this message?