tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Oct 19 09:17:21 2001
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC RE: latlh nay bangwI' ngo'
> >The prefix lu- is (they / him), singular object.
> >If they have three kids the object is plural. (they / them) is without
> >a prefix.
>
> This is a holdover from Finnish - when you modify a noun with a number, the
> noun is actually in a singular from. I'll just have to be more careful
If a noun is inharently plural, then it is treated singular. Words like Hoch,
cha, ngop. The concept of being plural is included in the word, you don't add
anything to make them plural; these are treated grammaticly singular.
> > > *Later*, be' vIghom. bangwI' ghaH 'e' vineH. 'ach neHbe' ghaH. mejpu'.
> >This sentence has a time frame to it. A time frame of you meeting her and
> >wanting her. You did not change the time-stamp after [neHbe' ghaH], so
> >mejpu' is part of this time frame. -pu' implies that the action is
> >completed. While you met and wanted her, she had ALREADY left.
> >
> So how would I chnge the time frame here? 'After that' or something? I was
> trying to indicate that she left, not that she was leaving. IS that just
> implied by the time frame of {neHbe' ghaH}?
You could just leave off the -pu'.
"I wanted her. She didn't want me. She left."
If she was leaving now, then you would put DaH in there:
... 'ach neHbe' ghaH. DaH mej.
DaH is your new time-stamp changing the setting.
Other words available:
ngugh - then, at that time
ghIq - then, subsequently; sequential
qen - recently
> > > ngugh 'oy' law', DaH 'oy' puS.
> >A Q law' B Q puS
> >ngugh and DaH are adverbs. A and B must be nouns.
>
> So you can't use whole sentences, just simple noun-verb constructs?
I've seen many people attach relative clauses to the nouns.
Do we have any law'/puS canon with V-bogh A Q law' V-bogh B Q puS ?
> > > tugh paw *TKD* 'e' vItul.
> >You don't have TKD yet? How did you write this message?
>
> 1) The grammar lessons available in PDF format on the KLI site
> 2) KGT and TKW (from my local library)
> 3) Knowledge of several different grammars (including one
> non-Indo-European)
>
> As you can see, though, there are several gaping holes in my grammar,
> such as not knowing the law'/puS rules or the neH exception.
Well, you're certainly doing an excellent job.
DloraH, BG