tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Mar 28 10:26:29 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: qama'
ja' SuStel:
>qatlh bISaH, ghunchu'wI'?
bIghelchu'. jIjangchu' 'e' vInID.
po'bejmo' peHruS 'ach qech law' yajHa'chu'mo' jISaH.
yajchoHchugh, po'qu'choH. po'qu'wI' law' QaQ law' po'qu'wI' puS QaQ puS.
muj TKD pIj 'e' qapmo' peHruS jISaH.
jatlhchu'wI' Sovna' HIv 'ej rut Okrand paQDI'norgh lajQo'.
Okrand Hol wIHaDmo', lughba' qech QIjbogh Okrand 'e' wIHarnIS.
tlhIngan Hol wIqeltaHvIS, Okrand mu'mey potlh law' Hoch potlh puS.
tlhIngan Hol jatlhlaHqu'mo' peHruS jISaH.
Qubchugh ghaH jatlhpa' yajlu'. QubHa'be' ghaH vIneH.
>qatlh potlhqu' lughchu'ghachHeylIj mujchu'ghachHeyDaj je?
potlh mujchu'ghachna'Daj Qochmo' TKD'e'.
tlhoS ram lughchu'ghachwIj. potlh TKD'e'.
maQochbe' TKD jIH je 'e' vIHar.
>yajHa'chu'chugh peHruS, SIbI' bIbep 'ej bIjatlh bImujchu'.
wa'logh yajHa'chugh, jIQIjrup.
cha'logh yajHa'chugh, vIchuHqang.
wejlogh yajHa'chugh, jISIv. qatlh yajbe'? yajQo''a' neH?
laH Hutlhbe'law' ghaH.
jImoghmo', jIqej 'ej pe'vIl vIyajmoH vIneHqu'.
>jatlhDI' peHruS bIQochchugh, wa'logh yIjatlh. 'ach yIjatlhQo' bImujchu'qu'
>SoHvaD 'e' vItob vIneH. Doch.
bIlugh. jIDochpu'. jIDochbe' 'e' vInIDchoH.
>'ej mujchugh peHruS, qaS nuq? qaSbe' Qugh.
ghojmoH peHruS. mujchugh ghaH, mujchoH je ghojwI'Daj. QughHom mojlaH.
Hol pIn ghaH 'e' maqmo', jIbIt. lughchu' 'e' Harba', lughbe'taHvIS.
latlhpu' ponlaH HarwI'na'. latlhpu' mISmoHlaHchu' mujbogh HarwI'.
>jatlhchugh ghot jIlughbej 'ej bImujbej, vaj Dogh ghotvam. jatlhlu'chu' 'e'
>yIbotQo'.
SuStel, a few years ago you yourself were telling us that we had it all
wrong when it came to using verbs of speaking. The big difference here
is that you were using TKD to prove your position. You weren't telling
us that TKD had it wrong; you were showing us where we had missed TKD's
explanation. peHruS keeps bringing in irrelevant definitions and terms
in an attempt to show us how TKD is incorrect. Even his acceptance the
other day of TKD's use of the words "aspect" and "perfective" was given
with the disclaimer "regardless of what lingusitics textbooks say". It
seems that he still intends to consider TKD incorrect, but he's stopped
trying to argue the point in the face of overwhelming opposition. I've
got a feeling he's going to keep using aspect the way *he* thinks about
it, instead of the way TKD describes it, because he still thinks aspect
in Klingon means the same thing his linguistics texts do when they talk
about aspect. And *that* is what I have been trying so hard to get him
to recognize.
-- ghunchu'wI'