tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Mar 02 16:14:23 1999

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

KLBC: Re: KLBC: DaHjaj

ja' pagh
>jatlh 'oghwI':
>> QaDmoHmeH wep
>> The coat causes it to be dry.
>
>This would be perfect without the <-meH> suffix. Why is it there?


I have been thinking about something else that had a  <-meH> on it.

Could you show me a couple of sentences that use <-meH> in them, as I find
its use confusing.

>
>> DaHjaj, yeb tlhaqwIj Qop.
>
>Rememver your sentence order: object-verb-suffix. Your watch didn't wear
>something else out - it just wore out. Also, <Qop> is "be worn out",
meaning
>your watch is in a state of being worn out. This is a perfect place for the
>suffix <-choH> - the important idea of the sentence is not the state your
>watch is in today, but the fact that it just got into that state.

Sometime I don't find it easy to recognise what is the object and what is
the subject.

>
>DaHjaj QopchoH yeb tlhaqwIj.
>
>> 'oH vItI'.
>
>maj. machqu' yeb tlhaq jo. bIpo'bej.
>
>> tlhIH, yeb tlhaqwIj Qopbe'.
>
>OK - now I don't understand. What is the <tlhIH> doing there. Do you mean
><tugh>? Also, same goes for <Qop> here as above. The one difference is that
>you probably want <-qa'> instead of <-choH>: the watch is going back into a
>state of not being worn out.

sorry, I looked at the line below in the dictionary that should be,
wa'Hu', yeb tlhaqwIj Qopbe'

>
>> tlhIh, be' navDev HIv loD navDev.
>> buD nuja' 'e'.
>
>jIyajbe'qa'. What is <navDev>? The closest thing I can think of is <naDev>,
>which doesn't make any sense. Also, the pronoun <'e'> can't be the subject
>of a verb.

wa'Hu', naDev be' HIv naDev loD
buD nuja' be' naDev.

I could not think of a way to say flatmates so I came up with women here,
but I think I got the noun-noun bit incorrect.

>
>> DIrojlI'.
>> DaHjaj, DIrojpu'
>
>DaH loQ jIyajqa'. I do have a little problem with your aspect suffixes,
>though. When is the action in the first sentence happening? If it's in the
>recent past, it makes sense. Otherwise, it doesn't.

Well that was supposed to be said in the bit above, but as it was
incorrect.....

>
>Also, what is the object of <roj> here. I don't know that <roj> can take an
>object, or if it can, what that object would be. It is defined as "make
>peace", not "make peace with". I would expect <roj> to be used like <roj
>yuQjIjDIvI', tlhIngan wo' je>.


I'll try to think of another way of doing it.

>pagh
>Beginners' Grammarian



'oghwI'

HovpoH 99167.71

Back to archive top level