tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Nov 20 22:15:35 2001
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: I had an idea, I don't know how...
- From: "Will Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: RE: I had an idea, I don't know how...
- Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2001 23:09:50 -0500
- Importance: Normal
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
Basically, if it makes sense, any verb suffix works on pronouns if they are
being used as pronouns. Meanwhile, {nuq tlhIHchu'} doesn't make much sense
unless you are talking to beings incapable of using language. Note that this
is not a very common activity for a Klingon. They barely talk to people, let
alone things. Perhaps {'Iv tlhIHchu'} was what you had in mind. Even that
looks a bit strange. Maybe this can be stretched to mean "Exactly who are
you?" though I'd prefer to say that more directly, like {pengu'eghchu'!}
"Identify yourselves perfectly/clearly!"
SuStel has already explained the basic QAO problem quite clearly.
charghwI'
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rohan Fenwick [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2001 1:48 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: I had an idea, I don't know how...
>
>
> jatlh Jiri:
>
> > How about:
> >
> > qatlh mevpu' 'e' vIQIjlaHbe'
> > qatlh mevpu' 'e' vIngu'laHbe'
>
> jang SuStel:
>
> >One of the objections to QAO is that the two sentences don't quite match
> >each other. An English speaker would not accept "I cannot
> explain 'why has
> >he stopped?'" I cannot explain the REASON he has stopped, not why has he
> >stopped? (Notice how that last sentence makes no sense?) As
> far as makes
> >sense to me, the object sentence cannot be a question.
>
> teSQaS, SuStel - ngerlIj Dalo'pu'DI', qechmeywIj DachoHpu' :)
> jIHvaD qechvam
> DaQIjchu'.
>
> nuq qechmey latlh jatlhpu' nuvpu' "QAO" qay'wI' QIjmeH?
>
> wotmeyvam bolo'DI', bIlugh 'e' vIlegh, 'ej DaH "QAO" qay'wI' vIyaj ('e'
> vItul). DaQIjpa' vIyajbe'.
>
> je Jiri jabbI'IDDaq, "indirect quotation" 'oHlaw' mu'tlhegh ngeHbogh.
> (DaQIjpu'bogh.)
>
> Congratulations, SuStel - when you explained your theory like
> this, my ideas
> changed. You've explained this idea to me perfectly.
>
> What other ideas have people already put forward to explain QAO?
>
> For these verbs, you are right - and not only that, you've managed to
> explain to me the entire QAO problem, which I didn't grasp before.
>
> As well, in Jiri's message, the sentence which he sent seemed like an
> indirect quotation (which you have also already explained).
>
> > or
> >
> > nuq tlhIHchu' 'e' ghaHvaD yIQIj
> > Explain to him who you really are
>
> >/nuq tlhIHchu'/? Yuck!
>
> How far can we stretch the pronoun-as-verb complex? I personally
> have used
> such things as <<ghaHbogh>>, <<jIHbej>> and others. Are these correct, or
> should I be looking for something different (and correct)?
>
> Qapla' 'ej Satlho'
>
> ro'Han
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
>