tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Sep 23 12:40:12 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: to be or not to be
- From: "Robyn Stewart" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: KLBC: to be or not to be
- Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 12:38:27 PST
- Organization: NLK Consultants, Inc.
- Priority: normal
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