tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Jun 30 21:45:58 1999

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: KLBC: jImuStaH

On Wed, 30 Jun 1999 16:47:14 -0400 "K.A. Tsai" 
<> wrote:

> jImuStaH.
> (I am in a continuing state of confusion.)

Well said.

> <yIjatlhQo'> jIjatlhlaH'a'?
> (Can I say "Don't speak"?)

Again, this is very well said.
> Is it okay to use <-laH> with <jatlh>? 


> The intent is to ask "Am I correct
> in the way I have said "don't speak"? 

Actually, that's not what I expected. For that, you would be 
better served to ask:

pabna' pabchu''a' mu'tlhegh <<yIjatlhQo'>>?

"Does the sentence 'Don't speak' perfectly follow the rules of 
true grammar?"

What you said is simply more ambiguous. I initially thought you 
meant, "Does one allow me to say..." or "Am I able to say..."

> What all does <-laH> cover?  Does it
> include the ideas of "knowing how to" and "physically able to" and "allowed
> to"? 

So far as I know all of these meanings are valid. The weakest of 
these is likely the "allowed to", though it is justified 
indirectly because if you are not allowed to, then you are not 
able to (unless you are one badassed individual, anyway).

> Are there any restrictions in the affixes that <jatlh> can take?

Well, since the direct object of {jatlh} is never, to my 
knowledge, a person, {-'egh} and {-chuq} don't make much sense 
to me. When people say {qajatlh}, they are using a grammatical 
trick to refer to the INdirect object as a shorthand for {SoHvaD 
jIjatlh}. Meanwhile, I know of no such use of {-'egh} or {-chuq} 
as a similar sort of shortcut. I can't think of any other verb 
suffixes that do not have a context for which that suffix would 
be correct on the verb.

> Is the above sentence a candidate for recasting?

Very few aren't. {{:)>

> runa 
> -------------------------------
> e-mail:
> The Z-Phials: "The Truth Is Right Here"

charghwI' 'utlh

Back to archive top level