tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Sep 20 16:44:07 2000

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

RE: (KLBC) {-bogh} + Type 5 Noun Suffixes


jatlh ghaHbe'wI':

	[...]
> My questions are:
> How can I say
> 
When I initially looked at your examples here, I thought of the "ship in
which I fled" issue. (This is described in the FAQ at
http://higbee.cots.net/~holtej/klingon/faq.htm#3.6 ) However, looking at the
examples closer, I don't think that's the case.

> \"In the place I visited there were lots of trees\"
> ?{DaqDaq vISuchbogh Sor law\' lutu\'lu\'pu\'}
> 
We can start with {Daq vISuchbogh} ("the site which I visited").

We can also say {Sor law' lutu'lu'} ("Lots of trees were found"). We don't
need {-pu'} here, since finding the trees is simple past tense. If you say
{Sor law' lutu'lu'pu'}, you are saying trees *had* been found there. In
other words, you would be saying: "There had been lots of trees at the site
I visited (but there aren't any now)".

Now, how do we put {Daq vISuchbogh} and {Sor law' lutu'lu'} in the same
sentence? As far as I know, Okrand has never used {-bogh} with type-5 noun
suffixes, the way you have here. We probably would be able to say your
example, {DaqDaq vISuchbogh, Sor law' lutu'lu'} ("At the place, which I
visited, lots of trees were found").

So your examples may be fine, but we don't have a definite answer currently.
Of course, you can always split it into separate sentences:
{Daq vISuch} "I visited a site"
{pa' Sor law' lutu'lu'} "There, many trees were found"

The same comments apply for your next two examples. They are probably fine,
but to be safe, you could rephrase them as two sentences.


> \"We argued because of the money I lost\"
> ?{Huchmo\' vIchIlpu\'bogh maghoHchuq}
> 
TKD defines {ghoH} as "argue, dispute", not "argue with, dispute with". So
you want to say {maghoH} ("We argue") here, rather than {maghoHchuq}.


> \"I gave a book to the person I met\"
> ?{nuvvaD vIqIHpu\'bogh paq vInob}
> 
> \"I exiled from the planet where I was born\"
> ?{yuQvo\' vIboghpu\'bogh jIghIm}
> 
First, {ghIm} means "exile", that is, to banish someone else. So you would
want to say {vIghImlu'} ("I was exiled"). Or, you could say something like
{mughIm voDleH} ("The emperor exiled me").

In this sentence, there is a problem using {-vo'} and {-bogh} here.
This sentence would work fine for a transitive verb (that is, a verb that
takes an object), such as {Such} ("visit"):

{yuQvo' vISuchpu'bogh mughIm voDleH} "The emperor exiled me from the planet
which I had visited"
This is made up of:
{yuQvo' vISuchpu'bogh} "From the planet which I had visited"
{mughIm voDleH} "The emperor exiled me"

However, look at the beginning of your sentence, when you use the
intransitive verb {bogh} ("be born"):
{yuQvo' vIboghpu'bogh} "From the planet which I had born"
You used the prefix {vI-} on the verb {bogh}. {vIbogh} would be "I am born
it", which doesn't make sense.

You want to say "*From* the planet *at* which I had been born".
Unfortunately, this is where we get into the "ship in which I fled" problem.
If Okrand were to come up with a way to say this, one way that *might* work
would be to say something like {yuQDaq jIboghpu'boghvo'} ("From the
planet-at-which-I-had-been-born"). However, this is pure speculation on my
part. So, once again, it would be best to rewrite the sentence in two parts:
{yuQDaq jIboghpu'} "I had been born on a planet"
{yuQvetlhvo' mughIm voDleH} "The emperor exiled me from that planet"

At least for me, in this message a backslash character appeared before all
of the apostraphes. Have you changed email software/settings recently? It
didn't notice this happening in your other emails.

- taD

Back to archive top level