tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Sep 04 09:48:26 2000
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: nuq as object
- From: Nicolau Rodrigues <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: KLBC: nuq as object
- Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2000 12:47:26 -0400
Xardana ja':
> Some people have been telling me I can't say "nuq DaSop DaneH" and "nuq Datlhutlh DaneH" because of the problem of a question word being in the first sentence of a two-sentence construction.
I'm not a proper person to answer this question, because I'm a beginner like you, but I also had my headaches with question words and listened to skilled Klingonists. So I feel qualified to say my opinion.
{nuq}, {nuqDaq}, {'Iv}, {'ar}, {'arlogh}, {ghorgh}, {qatlh} and {chay'} are question words, that is, just putting one of these words into a sentence you are recasting it as a question.
So {nuq DaSop DaneH} and {nuq Datlhutlh DaneH} are illogical because the main verb, {DaneH}, tells us you want something (it's an affirmation), but the object sentence is a question (a doubt).
In my opinion, these options sound better:
1- bISopmeH nuq DaneH.
2- bItlhutlhmeH nuq DaneH.
It's a matter of preference, but I would write:
3- bISopmeH nuq DamaS.
4- bItlhutlhmeH nuq DamaS.
Anyway, there are a number of suffixes we must'nt forget, but I'm not sure if they fit in this case:
5- nuq DaSopqang.
6- nuq Datlhutlhqang.
Are they right? I don't know.
Sadly, I started trying to answer a question, and I've finished putting up more questions.
--ghaHbe'wI'
_________________________________________________________
http://www.latinmail.com. Gratuito, latino y en espaņol.