tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Aug 23 15:06:57 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: reH Su'ba'pa' quS yInuD. / KLBC
- From: "Andeen, Eric" <[email protected]>
- Subject: RE: reH Su'ba'pa' quS yInuD. / KLBC
- Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1999 15:07:14 -0700
jatlh pIl'o':
>>> HIq vIjabtaHvIS yopwaHHom runqu' vItuQtaH.
jIjang. jIjatlh:
>> <run> is described as "be short (in stature)", so it apply to people,
>> animals, most likely trees and buildings, but probably not things like
>> pants.
> How about < yopwaHHom tIqHa'>? (although my teenie yopwaHHom really
> needs the -qu'.....)
<tIqHa'qu'> would probably work just fine. I don't know if putting both
<-Ha'> and <-qu'> on an adjectival verb is allowed (we don't have any
examples that I know of), but it doesn't seem like a problem.
>>> quSDaq HIq Humqu' lIchchoHlu'pu' 'e' vISovbe'.
>> lIchlu'lI''a' qaStaHvIS wanI' DaDelbogh? If not, then it's probably
better
>> to say just <lIchlu'pu'>. The <-choH> means that the <HIq Humqu'> had
>> *begun* to pour, and implies that it may well be still pouring.
> I believe the spill was deliberate, as that was my chair. I soon
> discovered that the petaQpu' at that table had no semblance of
> honor but did have a very poor sense of what is funny. I don't
> know which one of them did it, but it was deliberate.
> is this better?:
> quSDaq HIq Humqu' lIchlu'lI' 'e' vISovbe'.
This is better. The important question, though, is whether the stuff was
still pouring out when you sat down. Did you sit in a puddle of the stuff,
or did it pour down your back? If it's the former, then use <lIchlu'pu'>,
but if it's the latter, use <lIchlu'lI'>.
'ej petaQpu'vetlh DaHoHnISba'qu'. batlhHa' vangmo' chaH yIntaH 'e'
luqotlhbe'chu'.
Note: <qotlh> - "deserve, warrant", and NOT <qotlh> - "tickle". I think this
meaning comes from Power Klingon.
>>> pay' vIHotchoHchu'. 'uptaH ghu'. jIQeH. jImogh.
>> va.
> what is <va>? where can I find it in the books?
It is a general invective. I suspect it is one of the milder ones (by
Klingon standards). TKD appendix, page 178.
>>> DIrwIjvo' Qopchu'meH pughHom Hum 'ej vIloSnISta'.
>> I assume you meant <'e' vIloSnIS>. Also, the <-ta'> doesn't make
>> sense, unless you meant <-ba'>.
> I didn't know 'e' works with the verb "wait". I thought it was
> only for verbs of observing or knowing. I'm confused. I used
> -ta' because I wanted to say that I had accomplished waiting
> for it to wear off. But your way sounds better, I wish I'd
> thought of it.
<'e'> can be used with any verb that can take an event or phenomenon or
condition or anything else represented by a sentence as its object. <loS> is
"wait (for)", and one can certainly wait for an event. Examples of <loS>:
qaloS - I wait for you
lupwI' vIloS - I am waiting for the bus
wanI' veb vIloS - I am waiting for whatever is next
jIghung 'e' vIloS - I am waiting until I am hungry
bIpaw 'e' vIloS - I am waiting for you to arrive
chojang 'e' vIloS - I await your answer
pagh
Beginners' Grammarian
tlhIngan Hol Mailing List FAQ
http://www.bigfoot.com/~dspeers/klingon/faq.htm