tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Apr 09 08:16:43 2001
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: KLBC: Qov qeqmeH mu'tlheghmey
- From: "Stauffer, Tad E (staufte7)" <[email protected]>
- Subject: RE: KLBC: Qov qeqmeH mu'tlheghmey
- Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 11:16:20 -0400
> quS'a'Qob said:
>
> 'ach jIDajchugh, vaj lujlaw'pu' ngong. <HIja'> <ghobe'> ghap
> vIjatlhlaHbe' vIjangmeH. yapbe' ngong mIwmeywIj. vaj, mIwwIj
> vIlughmoHDI', jIngongnISqa'.
>
> [But if I test inconclusively, then the experiment has seemingly
> failed. I can't say one way or the other. My experiment's procedures
> are insufficient. So, as soon as I correct my procedures, I need to
> experiment again.]
>
As was already pointed out, a verb with the suffix {-meH} goes before the
noun or verb that it modifies. So your second sentence here would be:
{jIjangmeH, <HIja'> <ghobe'> ghap vIjatlhlaHbe'} "In order for me to reply,
I cannot say 'yes' or 'no'."
[...]
> teH, mI' QeD nger 'oHchugh De'Homvetlh'e'. navDaq nger DatoblaH.
> Qulpa' Dalo'nISbe'.
>
> [That is true, if it is a mathematical theory. You can prove it on
> paper. You do not need a research lab.]
>
maj.
[...]
> choyajHa'. DoS qIpchu'be' qIDwIj. QIp mu'tlheghmeylIj 'e' vIjatlhmeH
> mu'tlheghvetlh vIqonbe'. napbe'bej mu'tlheghmeyvetlh. tlhoS tlhIngan
> Hol mu'tlheghmey bIH QInwIj Hoch mu'tlheghmey'e'. QInwIjDaq puS neH
> DIvI' Hol mu'tlheghmey. 'e' vIHech.
>
> [You misinterpret me. I was not clear. I did not write that sentence
> to say that your sentences are stupid. They are certainly not simple.
> Almost all the sentences in my message were in Klingon. There were only
> a few English sentences in the message. That's what I meant.]
>
Since {Hech} is defined as "intend, mean to", the object of {Hech} would be
the action that you mean to do. So the last two sentences would probably be
better if they were written as:
{<QInwIjDaq puS neH DIvI' Hol mu'tlheghmey> jIjatlh 'e' vIHech. }
"I meant to say <There were only a few English sentences in the message>."
> [By the way, can a verb with a purpose clause refer to the previous
> sentence as a whole, as I did in the third sentence of my last
> paragraph?]
>
Since you used the pronoun {'e'} to refer to the previous sentence, it looks
okay to me. I don't see any problem with it.
- taD
-----------------
AIM: Tad Stauffer
ICQ #: 7622618
tlhIngan Hol mailing list FAQ:
http://www.bigfoot.com/~dspeers/klingon/faq.htm