tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Mar 01 09:33:37 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: ghunchu'wI'
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: ghunchu'wI'
- Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 12:33:32 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
- Priority: NORMAL
On Mon, 1 Mar 1999 00:48:58 -0800 (PST) [email protected] wrote:
> In a message dated 2/26/1999 4:59:54 PM US Mountain Standard Time,
> [email protected] writes:
>
> << <choHmey pab> vIghojpu'. 'oghta' "Noam Chomsky". >>
> ===================
> pIm qechmey DIyajbogh mung vISampu' 'e' vIHar.
Things get confusing around the word {mung}. It can't be the
subject of {DIyajbogh}, so it must be the object of {vISampu'}.
But if that is true, what is the grammatical relationship
between the stuff in front of {mung} and the stuff including it?
It reads like, "I believe that I have found the origin of the
ideas which we understand are different." In English, that makes
sense because we can drop the word "that" from a more
grammatically correct, "I believe that I have found THAT the
origin of the ideas which we understand are different." In
Klingon, we can't do that. You've just jammed two sentences
together with no grammatical glue to hold them together. There
are two main verbs there: {pIm} and {vISampu'}.
I think this makes more sense as:
{pIm qechmey DIyajbogh mung 'e' vISam 'e' vIHar.}
Better yet:
{pIm qechmey DIyajbogh mung 'e' vISamlaw'.}
Qochlu'''a'?
> Chomsky Pei je muS
> ghojmoHwI'pu'wI'. Hayakawa Terrell je buS chaH. Do' San Francisco State
> UniversityDaq che'pu' Hayakawa 'ej Do' pa' HolQeD 'Itlh vIHaD.
qatlh Do'?
> San FranciscoDaq vIHaDchoHpa' Taipei Teacher's Normal UniversityDaq cha' DIS
> QeD vIHaDpu'. Chinanganpu' chaH Hoch ghojmoHwI'pu''e'.
chaq pa' *China*nganpu' chaH Hoch ghojmoHwI'pu''e', 'ach Daqmey
law'Daq *China*nganpu' chaHbe'bogh ghojmoHwI'pu''e' lutu'lu'.
> peHruS
charghwI' 'utlh