tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Feb 22 11:59:40 2000
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: lengwI' vIyaj vIneH.
- From: Qov <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: lengwI' vIyaj vIneH.
- Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 11:55:36 -0800
jatlh tu'vel:
> chaq jIDogh 'ach...
>
> Just for fun, I'm trying to find out what all the possible combinations of
> verb prefixes and suffixes might be.
It's going to depend on the verb, the context, and the listener. I expect
that the context can be found to require just about any combination.
> I've already accounted for certain
> illegal and nonsensical combinations (only certain prefixes work with -lu'
> or with -chuq, or -'egh,
maj
>-vIS must be combined with -taH,
Except in the proverb /QamvIS Hegh qaq law' torvIS yIn qaq puS/.
> -Qo' and -be' cannot be present together,
I wouldn't say that. You can order someone not to not do something.
yISambe'Qo' - Do not fail to find him.
or:
Sa' wa'DIch: yo'vetlh HIv neHqu' matlh. DupwIj nIS to'Daj. vIchaw'be'laH,
'ach vIchaw'be'chugh, mumuSchoH 'ej QobchoH.
Sa' cha'DIch: vaj yIchaw'be'Qo', 'ach jo poQbogh matlh yIlaw'Ha'moH. QIpbe'
matlh. ngaq ghommoHlaHbe'DI' qech lum.
> The rovers -be' and -qu' present some
> problems. To form my constructions, I have been combining these two with
> the other suffixes: type 6 would include -ba', -bej, -chu', and -law', but
> also -ba'be, -ba'qu', -ba'be'qu', -ba'qu'be', and so on.
>
> My first question: can -be' or -'qu exist more than once in a single
> construction? My first guess would be no.
Sure, if it's meaningful. It /paq vIleghDI', vIlaDbe'laHbe'/. "When I see
a book, I can't not read it." It can be awkward, but it's less awkward than
the English, there. /DughochlI'chugh Qa', bInarghmeH, bIqetqu'nISqu'/. If
you're being tracked by a Kra, you really need to *run* to get away.
> My second question is: which suffixes don't logically take these two rovers?
> Can I say jIlegh'eghbe'?
qaleghbej 'ej choleghlaw' 'ach jIlegh'eghbe'. Makes sense to me.
Emphasizes that you don't see yourSELF, as opposed to not seeing something
else. In fact for most contexts of English "I don't see myself" I think
I'd prefer jIlegh'eghbe'. /jIleghbe''egh/ I'd save for jIHot'egh 'ej
jIlargh'egh 'ej jIQoy'egh, 'ach jIleghbe''egh.
> Does DaSovlu'qu' make sense?
Maybe in something like ... qaSovbe' 'ej DuSovbe' SoSwI' 'ej nISovbe'
juppu'wI' 'ach Qat QoQlIj, DaSovlu'qu'law'. Not a very good example, but
there must be some context where you want to emphasise that the person is
known by PEOPLE IN GENERAL, as opposed to being KNOWN.
> Is qaQoyneSbe' highly insulting, or just plain wrong?
Hmmmmm. Okrand says that rovers can occur just about anywhere except
following a type-9. My guess is that it's grammatical, but not really
meaningful, maybe a bit like English, "my least-esteemed sir." So by my
thinking, nine-year old Klingon children probably think it's a very amusing
insult, but it wouldn't win you any points at mu'qaD veS.
> I apologize if some of this is
> answered in TKD, I don't have it here with me. I'm guessing that you can't
> use -be' with types 1, 7, 8, 9, and -lu'; and can't use -qu' with type 7, 9,
> and -lu'.
-be' and V1 definitely works.
They aren't hitting *EACH OTHER*, they're hitting that rock.
-be' and V7 can work. I could truthfully say, wa'maH wej ben tlhIngan Hol
vIHaDchoH, 'ach qaStaSvIS wa'maH wej DIS vIHaDtaHbe'. Or:
be'Hom: qaStaHvIS vagh DIS lengtaH Qugh.
loDHom: nuqDaq leng? QIt lenglaw'!
be'Hom: Daq le'Daq lenglI'be'. vogh lengtaH.
Some people aren't going to like all these.