tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Aug 19 17:16:46 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: KLBC / Hurgh SIrgh
- From: "Andeen, Eric" <[email protected]>
- Subject: RE: KLBC / Hurgh SIrgh
- Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 17:17:27 -0700
jatlh pIl'o':
> jIba'lI' 'ej qa'vIn yuch je jItlhutlhlI'.
maj.
> Qe' matlhwIjDaq jIHtaH.
I assume you meant <motlh> rather than <matlh>, and the <-wIj> does not
migrate to the adjective verb like the <-Daq> does.
> *newspaper naQ vIlaDnISlaw'.
> roD SeQ wanI'vam.
SeQ'a'?
> reH ghIgh law'meyna' vIvumnISlaw'.
Once again, the only suffix type that migrates to the adjective verb is type
five, so you should have <ghIghmeyna' law'>. Also, <vum> is defined as
"work, toil", so it seem like something that cannot take an object. Think
about <ta'> instead.
> muba'bogh HuD'a' rurtaH DaHjaj'e'.
<ba'> is "sit", not "sit on", so it probably cannot take an object, and the
thing sat upon must be a locative. We have a very nice canon example -
<quSDaq ba'lu''a'?> - "Is this seat taken?" - from the list of useful
expressions in the TKD appendix. Also, I think the <ba'> calls for a <-taH>,
but the <rur> does not really need one.
> jImoghtaH. jI'Itlaw'taH.
Do'Ha'.
> vISIQ yab-'engvam'e' 'ej tIqwIjDaq vIyaj.
Sentence order - the verb <vISIQ> should go after the object.
> HuH 'upna' 'eptaHqu' DaHjaj'e'.
Wow. That is a really . . . interesting metaphor. I suspect you wanted
<'epqu'taH> rather than <'eptaHqu'>. The difference is subtle.
pagh
Beginners' Grammarian
tlhIngan Hol Mailing List FAQ
http://www.bigfoot.com/~dspeers/klingon/faq.htm