tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Oct 19 12:41:32 2001
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: KLBC RE: latlh nay bangwI' ngo'
- From: Eric Andeen <[email protected]>
- Subject: RE: KLBC RE: latlh nay bangwI' ngo'
- Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 10:33:13 -0700
DloraH:
> 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 ?
A marginally related canon example popped into my head:
QamvIS Hegh qaq law, torvIS yIn qaq puS.
Ignoring the grammatical weirdness of <-vIS> without <-taH>, this is one of
the more complex ways law'/puS can be stretched. <-bogh> clauses, which act
like nouns, are much easier to fit.
Here's an example from a Skybox card (my namesake) with a couple of <-bogh>
clause:
qIvo'rIt toQDuj 'oH tlhIngan wo' Duj pagh'e'. ra' qarghan HoD. DujvamDaq
tlhIngan nuH tu'lu'bogh pov law' Hoch pov puS 'ej DujvamDaq 'op SuvwI'
tu'lu'bogh po' law' tlhIngan yo' SuvwI' law' po' puS.
pagh