tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Jul 23 11:54:57 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: jIDach (KLBC)
Christiane Scharf wrote:
> >> tlhIngan Hol Dalo'taHvIS bIQaghbe', 'ach bImughDI' qay'choH chuvmey:
> >> loD jIHbe'. be' jIH.
> >
> >toH! be' SoHmo', pIjoy'be'!
>
> tuqaDvIp'a'? ;-)
qarIQmoH vIneHbe'.
>
>
> >be' SoH 'e' vItlhojbe'. chomerbej.
>
> Hoch jaj ngab peghmey puS.
>
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> taghwI'pu', chIch tujoy'chugh SaHoH,
> >
> >jImon. Good opening line to your BG spiel. You gotta set those ground
> rules!
> >:)
> >
> >qatlh qep'a'Daq bIjaHbe'?
>
> [It's {qatlh qep'a'(Daq) DajaHbe'?}. You wrote "Why don't you go _at_
> qep'a'?".]
You know, honest to goodness it NEVER even occurred to me that those verb
prefixes implied locative. I read that last night on the newsgroup (the posts
from MO). I was blown away. Was it like that all along and I just never
noticed? So in most of the cases I've always used {-Daq} I never really
needed it? Or does both ways work? Like the example on pg. 27 of TKD
pa'Daq yIjaH. Go to the room.
Now, I always assumed the {yI-} was "no object". Doggone imperatives. But
even if it is the {yI-} meaning {you/it} MO still used {-Daq}. But now, we
find it's only supposed to be {pa' yIjaH}? Hmmmm. jImIS. I'm behind on this
list a little so I'll go back and read the recent posts about this because,
chances are, this has already been discussed.
>
>
> *Germany* vIDab. qep'a' Daqvo' jIHopqu'. waghqu' leng. Do'Ha'.
jIyaj. 'ach QaQ je. DaH *BG* ru' SoH!
QInteS
>
>
> HovqIj
> -- temporary BG