tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Jul 07 14:30:48 2002
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: Ten Commandments
lab DloraH:
> > > > >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
right now i'm on the bus, but in berlin i'll check it out. anyway, i
think to remember: yes. you're right.
the only problem that remains for me is to see clearly the order of
the words (adjective + noun and so on). but i'll find out.
> > >> 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.
i see. hm. a terrorist would be less terrifying if he finally did a
revolution (in that case the revolution would be completed). the
ineffectiveness of terrorists makes them so scary. anyway, a
terrorist doesn't revolt completely. so it's not a Daw'wI', is he?
{anyway}, qatlh, <HeHmoH> <chot> vIQubmo', ghIjwI'pu' vIDaj.
(why i'm interesting for terrorists due to that i think about kllling
and murdering?)
((anyway, i don't see why my opinion about killing and murdering
would make me an interesting target for a terrorist. could you
explain to me?))
> > nuq DaHar SoH?
>> (and what's your opinion about this?)
>
>See what accompanied my signature.
your signature says that you are an army sergeant. is it your opinion
to be an army sergeant? see that our cultures might differ in this
point (army sergeant). i need an explanation.
> > 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.
vaj rapbe' SuvwI' mang je.
(so a soldier and a warrior are not the same thing.)
vaj, nuq 'oS mang.
(so what does a soldier do?)
vaj, qatlh HeHmoHwI' chotwI' je rapbe'.
(so why killing and murdering isn't the same thing?)
> > >DloraH, BG (mangghom bu' je)
>>
>> who else is mangghom bu'?
>
>DloraH, Beginners' Grammarian (and army sergeant)
sorry. i understood "also an army sergeant (like someone else, too)."
hm, but this would have been "mangghom bu' latlh", wouldn't it?
couldn't it also mean "army and sergeant"?
>For "who" you would have /'Iv/ in there somewhere.
yes. next time.
> > QeDHom vIt neH.
>> (just an attempt to do philosphy.)
> >
> > qamawneHbe'.
> > (no offense.)
>
>/neH/ isn't a suffix.
so let's take a suffix!
qamawqangbe'.
(no offense.)
stephan,
sts.