tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Aug 23 15:34:39 1999

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

RE: QuS vI'angpu'!



jatlh qa'ral:
>>> (jIghoH 'e' vIneH neH.  HIbuSHa'!)


jIjatlh:
>> bIghoH DaneHmo' QaghHom qa'ang. <neH> lo'lu'DI', not <'e'> lo'lu'.

jang qa'ral. jatlh:
> va!  <'e'> mu' vIparHa'mo' vInopnIS 'e' vIlIj!  Hagh qoHpu' neH 
> HeghtaHvIS SuvwI'pu'! 

> 'ach chomoghmoH!  jIghoH 'e' Dabotpu' jay'!

I hate to play BG again, but when <'e'> is used, the second verb cannot have
a type seven (aspect) suffix. The second verb takes on the aspect of the
first. <jIghoHpu' 'e' Dabot jay'!>. ~mark often calls this the "obscure
rule".

> chay' mu'mey lughchu' vIghoblaH?

Another minor correction: when a verb is used as an adjective, TKD says the
only suffix that can be used is <-qu'>. We have later canon examples with
<-Ha'> and <-be'>, but <-chu'> clearly does not fit. You could use
<lughqu'>, and you might also consider <pup>.

Also, I assume you meant <ghoj> rather than <ghob>. If not, what did you
mean?

> bIqImtaHvIS, pagh, jIghel:  tlhIngan Hol mu'ghomDaq 
> <net Sov> mu'mey SaHbogh 'ay' vIlaD 'ach wej vIyajchu'.  
> pIj *of course* 'oS, qar'a'?

qarlaw'. "of course" is one way of putting it.

Also, I think <qelbogh> makes more sense than <SaHbogh> here.


pagh
Beginners' Grammarian

tlhIngan Hol Mailing List FAQ
http://www.bigfoot.com/~dspeers/klingon/faq.htm


Back to archive top level