tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Apr 26 13:07:16 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: story
In a message dated 4/26/99 12:33:14 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[email protected] writes:
<< jatlh T'Lod:
> This is a short story, so here goes.
> qaStaHvIS wa'maH vatlh DIS poH,...
Grammatically this is fine, but it makes no sense in the context of the
story.
I just wanted to set a past tense setting for the story. I was unsure if I
should use the Type 7 suffixes here. I thought they might somehow be
inappropriate.
> rav legh SuvwI'.
> nguv rav. Doq.
> DopDajDaq legh, 'ej ghel.
Whose side is <DopDajDaq> referring to?
The warrior. I thought that in the context of the story, this might be
clear, since jupDaj hasn't been mentioned yet.
> jatlh <<chay' jay'? qaSpu''a' may'?>>
maj.
> <<ghobe'. porghDu' yInej.
Body parts get <-Du'>. Whole bodies get <-mey>.
I thought porgh was considered a body part. Could porghDu' imply separated
parts of a body?
> DanejQo'. rav'eq yIlegh.>> jang jupDaj.
You did well with the first quote, but this one doesn't work. <jang> is not
a verb of speaking, so you would have to say <jang jupDaj. jatlh ...>.
vISov. QaghHom 'oH, 'ej qaSqa'Qo' (vItul).
I also don't understand what <DanejQo'> is trying to do here.
Looking back, I was trying to say "You don't find one/it."
> rav'eq legh SuvwI', jaghchaj porghDu' legh.
> <<majQa', maqoch!>> jatlh. paw' cha' jup.
> <<'ej wa'leS, bebvam HaHpu' jaghpu'maj 'Iw,
> 'ej bommey law' mabom!>> jatlh SuvwI' jup.
> pItlh.
Daj. loQ lutvam vIyajbe', 'ach lugh pablIj HochHom. tlhIngan lut 'oHba'
lutvam.
maj. tlhIngan Hol vIlo'DI' po'meH vIqontaH.
pagh
Beginners' Grammarian
tlhIngan Hol Mailing List FAQ
http://www.bigfoot.com/~dspeers/klingon/faq.htm
>>