tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Apr 26 13:07:16 1999

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[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, 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
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 

 > 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'?>>
 > <<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'
maj.  tlhIngan Hol vIlo'DI' po'meH vIqontaH.
 Beginners' Grammarian
 tlhIngan Hol Mailing List FAQ

Back to archive top level