tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Oct 13 22:14:11 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Lachrimosa?
- From: [email protected]
- Subject: Re: Lachrimosa?
- Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 01:13:56 -0400 (EDT)
In a message dated 97-10-10 16:15:32 EDT, charghwI' writes to Alex:
>> Besides, I thought Klingons lacked tearducts
>
>wIch 'oH ngoDqoq'e'. neptaHvIS, wIchvam luchenmoH novpu'.
>maSaQlaH. qubqu' wanI', 'ach DuH. 'ach SaQbogh tlhIngan
>DaSumchugh yIyepqu'. Qobqu' wanI'.
>
>> (except Kahless, of course,
RE: 'ach SoQbogh tlhIngan DaSumchugh yIyepqu'
I know the [stative] verb {Sum} only as "be near". Your use of it here seems
to try to make the whole sentence translate as "But be very careful if you
are near a crying Klingon." Is this what you mean?
This form appears to be a contradiction to discussions regarding verbs
glossed by MO with "be......". The discussions have indicated to me that we
could not have an Object after such verbs, unless we put the suffix {-moH}
onto the verb stem, causing the action to shift to that Object.
But, we know we can use the construction of {matay'taHvIS}. This leads me to
believe we could also say {Sumchuqchugh SoQbogh tlhIngan SoH je vaj
yIyepqu'}.
Okay, my CK and PK are on loan to others in my qepHom. I need to listen to
see how {Sum} is used in its introduction to us. But, my point is, I need
proof that your use above matches canon for me to accept it. OTOH, I am
struggling with how to say in tlhIngan Hol "The man is near the tree." and
"The man is far from the tree." without using {Sumchuq} and {Hopchuq}.
Comments, please.
peHruS