tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Sep 23 12:40:12 1997

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

Re: KLBC: to be or not to be



muHwI':

> How do I say "...is not..."

Ah, muHwI'.  This is the question that stalled my tlhIngan Hol to a 
standstill almost ten years ago.  The problem is that you are 
looking for a verb to put {-be'} on -- and there isn't one, right?

The answer *is* in TKD.  In chapter six where it explains using 
pronouns in 'to be' constructions, (I'd give you the section but 
I'm going from memory, something around 6.5?) it mentions that any 
needed suffixes may be used directly on the pronoun.  There is an 
example in  the phrasebook section, right before the appendix.  You 
will see one phrase there that uses an "is not" or "am not."

> {mughwI' 'oH ponglIj'e''a' ?} (is your name mughwI'?)

The interogative goes on the pronoun, too:
mughwI' 'oH'a' ponglIj'e'?

>- {ghobe', muHwI' 'oH pongwIj'e'} (no, muHwI' is my name)
>{mughwI' *is not my name*} (mughwI' is not my name)
ghobe'.  mughwI' oHbe' pongwIj'e'

>{loDvetlh ghaH tlhIngan'e'} (that man is a Klingon)
Because of the way Okrand explains 'pronoun as to be'  this seems 
to come out more as "As for a Klingon, he is that man."  I would 
prefer {tlhIngan ghaH loDvam'e'}.  I think there are 
experienced speakers who believe your way is the best, and those who 
maintain it doesn't matter, too.

>{be'vam ghaH *not* tlhIngan'e'} (This woman is not a Klingon)

Grin.  You even had the "not" in the right place.
tlhIngan ghaHbe' be'vam'e'

>{vutwI' 'oH vutbogh loD'e'} (A cook is a man that cooks.)
>Is that correct?

You'd be in trouble if you tried to say "lunch is the dish the man 
prepares" with this construction, but as long as the type 5 noun 
suffix falls on the noun that is the head of the relative clause, 
this works.

- Qov


Back to archive top level