tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Jul 03 18:49:20 2002
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: Ten Commandments
> > > >rut chot mu' lo'lu', 'ej pIj mu' lulo'lu'bogh vIqel.
> >> is there a "lu(')" too much in "lulo'lu'bogh"?
> >Unspecified subject doing something to them.
> >mu' is being used as plural. The plural suffix is optional, and
> >the lu-..-lu' tells us it is plural. (TKD sect 4.2.5)
> aha! can i say "qaleghlu'" if want to remain anonimous? :)
Read that section in TKD again (p38-39).
-lu' requires the third person singular object prefix.
vI- something is done to me.
Da- to you
wI- to us
bo- to you (pl)
lu- to them
> >> not chot SuvwI'. chot mang.
> >> (a warrior never murders. a soldier does.)
> >'e' DaHarbej'a'? Do'Ha'. SoH nIHoH Daw'chu'qu'wI'pu' chaq 'e' vIchaw'.
> nuq Daw'.
> (what revolution?)
The suffixes attached tell you I used the verb Daw',
"one who really completely revolts"
It was the best I could think of for terrorist.
> nuq DaHar SoH?
> (and what's your opinion about this?)
See what accompanied my signature.
> rap'a' SuvwI' mang je?
> (is a warrior and a soldier the same thing?)
> i think a klingon warrior less dependant on the society than a
> soldier is. (a soldier is always paid, hence the word (at least in
> german the "Sold" is the money that you pay to a soldier), isn't it?)
I agree with this here. But this doesn't mean chot mang.
> >DloraH, BG (mangghom bu' je)
> who else is mangghom bu'?
DloraH, Beginners' Grammarian (and army sergeant)
For "who" you would have /'Iv/ in there somewhere.
> QeDHom vIt neH.
> (just an attempt to do philosphy.)
> (no offense.)
/neH/ isn't a suffix.