tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Oct 07 21:55:58 2001
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: KLBC: Strange Coincidence
> lo'laHpu''a' mu' <<pIqaD>> *non-Klingon script*mey DelmeH?
pIqaD IS defined as "Klingon writing system (n)", so according to TKD we
shouldn't use it to reference other writing systems; but it has been done
before and in this context it was understandable, but being understandable
doesn't make it legal.
Remember Klingon grammar is object-verb-subject. -meH phrases go before the
noun or verb that its modifying.
*non-klingon script*mey DelmeH mu' <pIqaD> lo'laH'a'.
The -pu' on lo' isn't really needed because the laws of grammar you are
questioning were/are in affect both then and now. Remember type 7 is
aspect, not tense.
If you play around for a while you could find a way to replace *non-klingon
script*. It would be lengthy tho, probably not something a KLBC should try
at home.
> mu'tlheghDaq 'oHlaH cha' wotmey. mu'tlheghDaq 'oHlaH'a' wej wotmey? (DIvI'
> Hol rur: "I want to start to help them").
Are you asking "Can three verbs be in a sentence"?
This is an interesting use of "pronouns as to-be". I probably would have
said [wej wotmey ghajlaH'a' mu'tlhegh?] or [wej wotmey ngaSlaH'a'
mu'tlhegh]. Your usage goes along with Qanqor's article in HolQeD #35, Sep
2000; but he played around only with noun suffixes.
This is certainly interesting, BUT if you are going to try that... wotmey is
plural and would be paired up with [bIH].
Let's see what the other grammarians think about this usage.
As for answering your actual questions...
"I want to start to help them" would be written with three sentences, so
really each sentence has only one verb; but I know what you mean... I have
seen, and have even written a string of more than one [... 'e' ...]. A
sentence which refers to a previous sentence, which in turn also refers to a
previous sentence, etc. It can get confusing. (of course neH doesn't use
'e'). You could also achieve this particular sentence utilizing the
suffix -choH. [vIQaHchoH vIneH].
puq qIp HoD 'e' legh yaS 'e' vIlegh.
> (je <<mu'tlheghDaq>> jIjatlh'a'? pagh Hat'a'?)
'e' chaw'lu'law'. Hatbe'law'.
I believe it is allowed.
DloraH, BG