tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Jun 15 11:42:38 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: RE: List of Klingon fauna
On Mon, 15 Jun 1998 11:20:56 -0700 (PDT) "Andeen, Eric"
<[email protected]> wrote:
> ghunchu'wI' jabbI'ID lughmoH charghwI':
>
> >> pa' luDabqu'be'.
>
> >This one is sneaky in its weirdness. If you meant, "They do not
> >very much dwell in a room," then this is correct. Meanwhile, if
> >{pa'} is supposed to be "thereabouts", then it is an adverb
> >(chuvmey} and not a noun, so it can't be the direct object of
> >{Dab}. I'd either repeat {chal}, or omit it altogether. Using
> >{pa'} as some sort of locative pronoun replacing {chal} may make
> >sense in English, but it doesn't work in Klingon by any grammar
> >we've been shown yet.
>
> Both definitions of <pa'> are nouns. <pa'> - "there, over there,
> thereabouts (n)" (TKD).
Ouch. My own word list agrees. I got the {adv} reference from
Holtej's pojwI'. Everyone else using pojwI' should take note of
this and edit your lexicon to correct it.
Of course, I still think it SHOULD be an adverbial...
But I accept it as a noun, even though it does imply an
locative concept which is basically adverbial in nature. It does
for locatives what {DaH} does for time stamps.
If it really were a noun, you could put {-Daq} on it, right? And
it really could be the direct object of a verb. It could be a
subject of a verb, too.
Just try to use it that way, though. It gets really ugly.
> pagh
charghwI'