RE: KLBC: wot /pong/ vIlo'meH vInID

["Andeen, Eric" <Eric.Andeen@Sequencia.com>]

jatlh tuv'el:

> KLBC: wot /pong/ vIlo'meH vInID

maj. 'ach nuq DanID? You have a prefix of <vI-> on <nID>, so it has to have
an object. Instead, try either of these two sentences:

wot <pong> vIlo'meH jInID
wot <pong> vIlo' 'e' vInID

> SosoywI'vaD reghuluS 'Iwghargh Dapongpu' jay'!
> You've called my mommy a friggin' Regulan bloodworm.

The next sentence here would obviously be <DaH yIHeghrup!>.

> DaH SoHvaD nuchHomna' vIpongtaH jIH.
> Now *I'm* calling you a definite little coward.

You've used the <-taH> aspect suffix here, saying that the action is
continuous. For <pong> to be continuous in this context, I would expect to
see someone pointing and chanting <nuchHomna'> over and over. If it's just
once, drop the <-taH>.

Also, the "prefix trick" can work in this situation. Instead of <SoHvaD
nuchHomna' vIpong>, you could say <nuchHomna' qapong>. The longer version is
not incorrect - just a little longer and probably more formal.

> tlhIHvaD verengan Ha'DIbaHpu' moH DIpong.
> We call all of you ugly Ferengi dogs.

majQa'. pe'vIl mu'qaDmey Dabach.

It's hard to say whether the plural suffix on <Ha'DIbaH> should be <-pu'> or
<-mey>. Since you're calling then animals, which are not normally capable of
speech, I would probably go with <-mey>. Fortunately, plurals can be
dropped, and context is definitly clear enough here to do that.

Once again, the prefix could shorten this to <verengan Ha'DIbaH moH repong>,
although it is certainly correct the other way.

> be'nalwI' chaj DoghvaD be' 'IH pong'a' ghaH?
> He called my wife's silly friend a beautiful woman?

maj. Very nice.


pagh
Beginners' Grammarian

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