Re: paqmey permey

["David Trimboli" <SuStel@hotmail.com>]

From: "Agnieszka Solska" <agnpau1@hotmail.com>
> jIchup:
>
> >PK:  ??pe'vIl jatlhlu'meH tlhIngan Hol
> >      ?? tlhIngan Hol HoSghaj
>
> jang SuStel:
>
> >This one's tougher. I like your first suggestion, but
> >without the apparently unneeded /lu'/:
> >
> >pe'vIl jatlhmeH tlhIngan Hol
> >Klingon Language foe Speaking Forcefully
> >
>
> rut lugh {V-meH N}. rut lugh {V-lu'meH N}.
> wej pab chutHomvam vIyajchu'.


Sorry, I see how I could have worded that better.  I didn't mean that I
thought your suggestion was wrong or inappropriate.  I meant that I would
LIKE the suggestion better if it didn't have the /-lu'/.  There's certainly
nothing wrong with it.  I was just suggesting an alternative.  I was in the
mood for a noun phrase.

As for when to use /-lu'/ or not, everyone's got his own opinion.  I tend to
go along with the idea that when a /-meH/ clause modifies another verb, a
subject is required (even if that subject is the indefinite /-lu'/), and if
a /-meH/ clause modifies a noun, it doesn't take (or maybe just doesn't
require but CAN take, I'm not sure) a subject.  Some of the canon apparently
supports this, but other interpretations are certainly possible.

SuStel
Stardate 2288.6