tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Dec 17 15:43:24 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: KLBC: jIbuSHa'lu'taH'a'?
- From: Burt Clawson <Burt@teltrust.com>
- Subject: RE: KLBC: jIbuSHa'lu'taH'a'?
- Date: Fri, 17 Dec 1999 16:35:24 -0700
> jatlh tuv'el:
> > wa': jIbuSHa'lu'taH'a'?
> When using <-lu'>, the unspecified subject is assumed to be third person
> singular (he/she/it). With a first person singular object (me), the prefix
> we would normally choose would be <mu->, but the prefix reversal rule for
> <-lu'> turns it into <vI->.
Qagh wa'DIchwIj vIHeSpu'.
> > cha': pImqu'mo' SoH nIbuSHa'taH.
> pIm nuq? mubuSHa' nuq? jIyajbe'. yIQIj.
"What's different? Who is ignoring me? I don't understand.
What I meant was: "Because you are so different, we are ignoring
<<bIpImqu'mo' SoH'e' nIbuSHa'taH.>>?
> > wa': vIchoptaHDI' poSchoHba' QImmey.
> I don't think <-taH> goes very well here. For one thing, <-DI'> is defined
> as "as soon as, when", and <-taH> means that the action of the verb is
> continuous or ongoing. I don't think these two concepts get along very
> - the "as soon as" seems like it requires a one time event or a change in
> state. You might be able to use <chopchoHtaHDI'>, but I think <-DI'> and
> <-taH> together without <-choH> or <-qa'> is at least strange and probably
> completely illogical.
I was trying to say "gnaw" <choptaH>.
> > cha': bIDoghchu'mo' DaH qaHoHnIS.
> tlhInganna' ghaHlaw' cha'.
"Two seems to be a definate klingon."