tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri May 21 17:59:24 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: naj
- From: "Andeen, Eric" <[email protected]>
- Subject: RE: naj
- Date: Fri, 21 May 1999 18:03:38 -0700
jatlh DloraH:
> [blah blah blah...
> ramjep vem, vaj Hu',
> 'ej jupDajvaD jatlh,
> < jupwI', jInajpu'.
> jInajtaHvIS ghu'mo' 'anglu'bogh jIbItqu'! >
> ..]
> Does this make sense and is it allowed?
The <ghu'mo' 'anglu'bogh> threw me at first, but it probably should not
have. It does certainly make sense. It *seems* legal, although I can't say
for sure. <ghu'mo'> is obviously the head noun of the relative clause. The
problem is whether a the head noun can have a <-mo'> on it, especially as
the object of the clause. I think it probably can.
> next:
> naj is verb only.
> I'm looking for ideas for expressing "I had a third dream".
cha'logh jInajpu'. jInajqa'.
pagh
Beginners' Grammarian
tlhIngan Hol Mailing List FAQ
http://www.bigfoot.com/~dspeers/klingon/faq.htm