tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Jan 22 14:05:26 2001
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: bIbergh / berghwI'
- From: "Stauffer, Tad E (staufte7)" <[email protected]>
- Subject: RE: bIbergh / berghwI'
- Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 17:03:51 -0500
> ghaHbe'wI' asks:
> : This question is not about syntax or grammar, but on the meaning of
> similar
> : structures.
>
Voragh replied:
> Since you're asking for opinions, I'll give you my cha' DarSeq.
>
> : I'd like to know what you understand from these sentences:
> : 1- bIbergh
> : 2- berghwI' SoH
> : Do these sentences have different meanings? Do they emphasize something
> : or both are neutral?
>
> They do have different meanings however they are both neutral statements
> grammatically. This is how you would emphasize {SoH} in each:
>
> bIbergh SoH.
> berghwI' SoH'e'.
>
[additional comments cut for space]
I agree with Voragh's comments.
In {bIbergh SoH}, the {SoH} is redundant, and so it adds emphasis.
However, in {berghwI' SoH}, the {SoH} isn't redundant.
At second glance, {berghwI' SoH'e'} feels odd to me. {SoH} is being used
like a verb "you are..." here, so it seems like the noun suffix {-'e'}
doesn't belong on {SoH} in this case. Then again, I'm not sure if *{berghwI'
SoHqu'}* would be any better for adding emphasis to {SoH} here. Just my
thoughts on this; either way would probably be understood in coversation
with another Klingon speaker.
- taD