tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Dec 04 11:25:14 2000

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

RE: pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeese ?



QIpqu'wI':
> IF YOU SEND THIS TO AT LEAST 15 PEOPLE RIGHT
> AWAY, A $25 GIFT CERTIFICATE TO OUTBACK
> STEAKHOUSE WILL POP UP ON YOUR SCREEN PRINT OUT
 
De'vID:
: Dochvam DaHarchugh, SoHvaD "USS Brooklyn" meH vIngev.
: = If you believe that, I'll sell you the bridge to the USS Brooklyn.

Although I quite agree with your comment, I do have one minor correction:

  'e' DaHarchugh ...

As Okrand uses it, the noun {Doch} "thing" always refers to a tangible,
physical object.  You cannot use {Dochvam} "this thing" or {Dochvetlh} "that
thing" to refer to the relative pronouns "this" or "that" - a very common error
among English speakers.  For that (!), we use the special Klingon pronouns
{'e'} and {net}.  Although you most often see them linking independent clauses
in complex sentences, they can be used by themselves:

  'e' luSov
  They know that. TKD

  'e' vIlegh 
  I see that. TKD

  'e' neHbe' vavwI' [or: vavoy?]
  That wasn't what my father wanted. ST6

Here Azetbur refers to someone else's just uttered comment.  

BTW, the fact that she uses {'e'} with {neH} - which we are told is unnecessary
- may be emphatic:

  neHbe' vavwI'.
  My father didn't want it.

vs.

  'e' neHbe' vavwI'.
  *That* wasn't what my father wanted.
  That was exactly what my father did *not* want!



-- 
Voragh                       
Ca'Non Master of the Klingons


Back to archive top level