tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Jul 08 10:31:11 2002

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

RE: KLBC: emphasis

> > From: Quvar valer []
> > Can we make a combination of those two rules?
> > i.e. have two -'e' suffixes in a sentence.
> > Example:
> > {puqpu''e' chaH qamapu''e'}
> > "The prisoners are CHILDREN."
> >
> > talking like TKD, this is translated as:
> > "As for the prisoners, they are children (and not something else)."

>From: "rItlhmoQSuvwI'" <>
>Actually... I like the sounds of having two in the case you cited.  It
>certainly seem to work to me.  It "sounds" and "feels" ok.  And I'm not
>aware of any rules invalidating it, but then again there are probably a
>lot of them I'm not familiar with.

The English translation feels okay, but to me the Klingon sounds like you 
can't decide what your topic is.  Putting /-'e'/ on the last noun in a "to 
be" sentence isn't just a thing you have to do.  It's how you link one thing 
with another.

puqpu' chaH.
They are children.

puqpu' chaH.  qama'pu''e'.
They are children.  I'm talking about the prisoners.

puqpu' chaH qama'pu''e'.
As for the prisoners, they are children.
The prisoners are children.

It looks to me like saying */puqpu''e' chaH qama'pu''e'/ is using focus on 
the left and topic on the right.  I get the feeling that you should only 
have one /-'e'/ in this sort of situation.

Of course, there's no rule AGAINST doing it.  And I too have tried to 
construct just such a sentence . . . .

Stardate 2517.9

Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger:

Back to archive top level