tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Jul 25 12:32:59 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBG beginner's %#!%*!!
- From: [email protected] (Christiane Scharf)
- Subject: Re: KLBG beginner's %#!%*!!
- Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1999 21:35:08 +0200
jatlh pI'lo:
>
>ghel *pI'lo, (do I have to use a mark to denote my name is not a canon
word?)
Since everybody knows that it's your name, I'd say no.
Yet another nitpicky thing: The only verbs of which we know for sure that
they can take a direct quote are {jatlh} and {ja'}. For "pI'lo asks <<...>>"
you need to say: {ghel pI'lo. jatlh <<...>>}
>
>which is correct?:
>
>1) be' tuQHa' bejlu'taHmeH tachDaq jIbaj.
>
>I used tuQHa' rather than tuQHa'moH because *to me* I see the activity as
being
>naked, the display of it, rather than the process of becoming that way as
>entertainment.
It's your choice. However, {tuQ} doesn't mean "be dressed", but "wear". {be'
tuQHa'} - "he/she/it doesn't wear a woman". For "undressed woman/women" you
need a relative clause: "a woman that doesn't wear anything" - {vay'
tuQHa'bogh be''e'} or: " a woman that wears nothing" - {pagh tuQbogh be''e'}
The '{-'e'} on {be'} marks it as the head noun of the relative clause.
{-Ha'} is fine, since the woman just got undressed. For "women" you don't
necessarily need to add the {-pu'} suffix, but you do need the prefix
{lu-}: {vay' lutuQHa'bogh be'(pu')'e'}/{pagh lutuQbogh be''e'}
{bejlu'taHmeH} is ok, but a simple {bejlu'meH} would probably be better,
since not all the customers are watching all night. If you have "women", it
becomes {lubejlu'meH}, of course.
>(Just call me an old fashioned ecdysiast anachronism)
No, I won't. I can't find "ecdysiast" in my English-German dictionary... 8-)
2>
>2) be' tuQHa' bejlu'taHmeH tachDaq 'e' vIbaj.
>
>I am confused. I don't WORK the nightclub, I work AT (-Daq) the nightclub.
>Is the nightclub the object of the verb (baj) ? I know that the verb "to
work" is >not a verb of knowing or observation, but does TKD 6.2.5 apply to
this >situation?
You can't do this as a SAO (sentence as object) construction because you
don't have two main clauses. {vay' lutuQHa'bogh be''e' lubejlu'meH
tach}/{pagh lutuQbogh be''e' lubejlu'meH tach} is just a noun phrase.
Since the gloss for {baj} is "work _for_", {tach} would be the direct object
of {baj} : {... tach vIbaj}. However, this could also mean "I earned a bar."
{... tach vIbajtaH} might be less confusing.
There's another verb, {vum}, which means "work". So you could also say {...
tachDaq jIvum}.
So your sentence would be:
vay' lutuQHa'bogh be'(pu')'e' lubejlu'meH tachDaq jIvum.
or: pagh lutuQbogh be'(pu')'e' lubejlu'meH tachDaq jIvum.
Though this is grammatically correct, it's rather hard to read, since you
have a pretty long noun phrase that includes a relative clause. It would be
better to split it up into two sentences: "I work at a bar. At this bar one
can watch women that don't wear anything/that wear nothing." mu'tlheghmeyvam
tImugh!
>
>yImISHa'choHmoH
If you want to say "cause me to begin to be un-confused", you need the
prefix {HI-}: {HImISHa'choHmoH}
qamISHa'choHmoH 'e' vInID. DuQaH qeSwIj 'e' vItul.
HovqIj
-- temporary BG
>pI'lo
>