tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Aug 04 13:12:22 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: lopno'
ja' Qov:
> ---Christiane Scharf <[email protected]> wrote:
> > jang Qov:
> > > ---Christiane Scharf <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > qaSpa' lopno' not jupvam vISuchpu'. juHDaj Daq
> > > > vIDellu'.
> > >
> > > DoSlIj vIlegh 'ej bIpabHa'chu' jIjatlhlaHbe', 'ach mIwvetlh
> > > vIchupbe'.
> > > <jIHvaD juHDaj Daq Dellu'> yIjatlh. mIwvam nap law' mIwlij nap puS.
> >
> > qatlh? Why is this simpler? After all, my version is even shorter.
>
> Ok, reasons.
> 1. It's true that a verb prefix can refer to a first or second person
> indirect object instead of a direct object, but when you already have
> /-lu'/ reversing the prefix anyway, it's dubious.
{-lu'} is dubious in any case. However, if the prefix indicates a first
person object and there is an additional third person object before the
verb, the relations are clear, aren't they?
> 2. /juHDajDaq vIDellu'/ means 'I was described at her house' and the
> only difference is the space, or a slight stress difference when spoken.
True, but when written down, the difference is obvious. (I'd probably not
manage to construct something with {-lu'} when talking...)
> 3. Usually the verbs where the 'prefix trick' is used are the ones
> where the literal interpretation sounds funny anyway. So /HInob/ is
> likely to be interbreted as "give it to me" while /HIDel/ without
> context obviously means "describe me."
But the third person direct object comes first, anyway. So the first person
prefix must refer to the indirect object, right?
> 4. You have to wait until the final syllable of the entence before
> knowing what word plays what role in the sentence.
You always have to wait for the final syllable in a {-lu'} sentence.
This probably looks like I love arguing, but I just want clarification.
>
>
> > > DaH *plate* mughbogh mu' wISov. wa' jengva', cha' ngop.
> >
> > KGTDaq mu'meyvam lutu'lu'? wej paqvam vIghaj.
>
> HIja'. KGTDaq bIH.
>
> > > > jup loDnI' De'wI' tlhojlu'.
> > >
> > > mu' DawIvHa'pu''a'? /tlhojlu'/? "It was realized"? "One
> realized it"?
> > > chaq qaq /De'wI' tu' vay'/ pagh /SaH De'wI' net tlhoj/?
> >
> > chupta'ghachlIj cha'DIch vIparHa'. (I think I've used {-ghach} for the
> > first time here... chollaw' Seng)
>
> Shrug. I would have said /qechlIj cha'DIch/, and would translate
> /chupta'ghachlIj/ first as "your having suggested it" or something,
> referring to the act. That's me. I have no idea what a Klingon would
> say.
No comment.
> > > > SIbI' De'wI' charghta' ghomHom. Quj QujtaH.
> > >
> > > wa' Quj luQujtaHchugh, vaj moHaq /lu-/ yIlo'.
> >
> > wa' Quj Qujmey law' ghap QujtaH. Quj mI' vISovbe' 'ach...
> >
> > _I_ treated {ghom} as singular. Is a {ghom} grammatically plural? If
> > this is the case, you contradict yourself. You don't comment on
> {De'wI'
> > charghta' ghom} but you do comment on {Quj QujtaH}. Both have the same
> > subject and both have a singular object.
>
> You're right. ghom is singular. I read the first sentence as
> correct, then cached its subject in my head as "they" instead of "it."
> DopDaq qul yIchenmoH QobDI' ghu'.
Wow! I caught Qov making an error. I'll mark the day in my calendar.
> ==
>
> Qov - Beginners' Grammarian
>
> _________________________________________________________
> DO YOU YAHOO!?
> Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
HovqIj