tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Dec 10 16:39:26 1999

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

RE: KLBC: A construction that seems...unusual.

jalth juDmoS:

> I wanted to check and see if there were major 
> flaws in this dialogue:

You're using the <-ta'> apsect suffix on just about every verb. This doesn't
really make sense. <-pu'> and <-ta'> do *NOT* indicate simple past tense;
they indicate that the action is complete. I don't think that is the case in
any of your sentences. Drop the <-ta'>mey.

> ' wa'Hu' chuSqu'moH nuq ? ' tlhobta' qama'.

Two minor problems here. First, <tlhob> is not a verb of speaking. You have
to use <jatlh> or <ja'>: <tlhob qama'. jatlh ' ... '>. 

Second, I think the <-moH> on <chuS> probably does not belong. <chuS> means
"be noisy", so your sentence means "What made (it) noisy?". This might be
what you want, but I suspect you were going for "What was noisy?".

> qama' ja'ta' 'avwI' , ' lujchu'pu' toDwI'pu'qoq. 
> nItoD'e' lunIDtaHvIS Heghpu'be'wI'pu'bogh DImuHta' ! '

You need a space between <nItoD> and <'e'>. It's a minor typo, but it looks
like a significant error when you first see it.

You also are not allowed an aspect suffix on the verb after <'e'>.
Unfortunately, this rule combined with the rule about <-taH> and <-vIS>
combine to mean that <-vIS> is not allowed after <'e'>, which is frankly
just a little too weird for me. I suspect there is some sort of exception.
Perhaps a <-taH> on the first verb counts for the <-vIS> on the second, as
in <nItoDtaH 'e' lunIDvIS>. Perhaps <-taH> is allowed on the second verb
only when <-vIS> is used. I can't tell you for certain.

> Haghta' 'avwI' .
> 
> (It's that Heghpu'be'wI'pu'bogh construction that concerns 
> me...the pu' - pu' just doesn't look right...but ...)

The double <-pu'> is fine, but it still isn't right. You have two type 9
suffixes on one verb: <-wI'> and <-bogh>. Let's break the thing down one
suffix at a time:

Hegh - die
Heghpu' - have died
Heghpu'be' - have not died
Heghpu'be'wI' - one who has not died
Heghpu'be'wI'pu' - multiple people who have not died - exactly what you want
Heghpu'be'wI'pu'bogh - ?????

Just drop the <-bogh> and you are fine.


pagh
Beginners' Grammarian

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

Back to archive top level