tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Jul 15 11:16:18 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: jIyIntaH
ja' charghwI':
> On Tue, 14 Jul 1998 13:16:18 -0700 (PDT) Christiane Scharf
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > boHarchugh pagh boHarbe'chugh,
> > Dotlhvam boparchugh(*) pagh boparHa'chugh,
> > jIyIntaH.
>
> bIyInlI'. {{:)>
chollI'be'law' jajwIj Qav. vaj jIjatlh <jIyIntaH>.
>
>
> reH mevlaH yIn. Everything is so fragile.
QInwIj vIngeHDI' jI*optimistic*qu' jIH 'ach DaHjaj Hegh vIqel (Hegh_wIj_
vIqelbe'). latlh QIn vIqonqang.
>[...]
> > mu'mey vISovchu'bogh vIlIjchoH. jIqanchoHlaw'.
>
> ghaytan jIH qan law' SoH qan puS 'ej mu'mey vIlIjpu'bogh
> law' law' mu'mey DalIjpu'bogh law' puS.
chaq bIlugh. law'qu'be'mo' mu'mey vIghojpu'bogh, mu'mey law'qu'
vIlIjlaHbe'. vatlhwI' qellu'chugh ghaytan pIm ghu'.
>
>
> > tlhIngan Hol vIlo'taHvIS vay' vIqonnIS. vIqonbe'chugh, HIraDqu'.
> > 'oy'naQ yIlo' qoj jIHvaD yuch yISo' qoj latlh mIwmey yItu'.
> > HIqonmoH. jIbuDqu'bej jIH. reH vo'wI' vIpoQ.
>
> qatlh pIraDnIS? ghaytan mabuD je.
bIbuDbe'bej SoH. law' jabbI'IDmeylIj 'ej tIn.
>
>
> > (*) jIyIntaH 'e' parbogh nuv SoHchugh:
> > jIyIntaH.
>
> bIyInlI' 'ej bInuQqu'lI'chugh choHlaH ghu'.
chobuQ DaneH'a'?
>
>
> > vaj yIyep: jIHvaD bIjatlhchugh <yIntagh> bIyIn rIntaH, jISagh.
>
> DaSmeywIjDaq jIbItlaw'...
yIpumQo'.
>
>
> > }};-)
> > -> hhhmmm... maybe I could say {bIyIntaH rIntaH}?
>
> chaq bIQaghlaH je. Two conflicting aspect markers on the same
> verb?
That's exactly my problem. {rIntaH} is no type 7 suffix, but it's also
an aspect marker. The thing I want to know is: is there a conflict if I
use both {-taH} and {rIntaH}?
>
>
> > I know, even {rIntaH}
> > alone is quite strong, but could I do that for effect?
>
> It depends upon the effect you are seeking. If you are seeking
> the effect of being someone who speaks Klingon well, then the
> answer is, "No."
In this case, the effect was on the sound only.
>
>
> > (DIvI' Hol
> > vIlo'nISmo' jItlhIj)
> >
> > HovqIj
>
> charghwI'
HovqIj