tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Jul 20 08:49:59 2002

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

RE: chotwI'/mang

lab DloraH:

>veb "be next (in a series, sequence)" doesn't take an object.  You do not
>"be next a thing"; and so you can't use -chuq.  In order to use -chuq the
>verb needs to be able to have an object.  -chuq causes the multiple subjects
>to also be the objects.

in esperanto it all works so easy... i'm trying to be more 
disciplinated in klingon.

>  > >"Do you finally start to learn their reasons, or do you not yet
>>  kill them?"
>>  >
>>  >
>>  >DloraH
>>  yes. (is the sentence grammatically wrong in klingon? should i have
>>  added some <-ta'>? i meant "did you finally start to learn their
>>  reasons, or haven't you killed them yet")
>>  you said that you have to defend your family and, if necessary, kill
>>  the terrorists and after that you will learn their reasons.
>>  'ach meqchaj DaghojchoHbe' 'e'law'. / 'ach meqchaj DaghojchoHbe'
>>  'e' vIQub.
>>  (but i think, you haven't begun to learn their reasons.)
>'e' is a pronoun, -law' is a verb suffix.  Drop the 'e' and move the -law'
>over to the DaghojchoHbe'.
>/meqchaj DaghojchoHbe'law'./

that's unfair. i thought i could use /'e'/ like a verb. (OTOH, it 
seems easier your way.)

>meqchaj vIghojchoH jIH.

maj. jagh SovnISlu' SuvwI'.

>  > chaq 'oHvaD taH cha' meq:
>>  (two reasons for this are possible: / maybe there are two reasons:)
>>  1. you are so busy killing them, that you haven't found the time to
>>  learn their reasons.
>>  2. you personally didn't get to kill them yet, and so you wait to
>>  learn their reason, too.
>jIjatlhta' [meqchaj vIghoj].


>  > latlh meq ghoj nuv mob 'e' Qatlhqu' 'e' vItulbe'.
>>  (i fear it's much too difficult for a single person to learn the
>>  reason of the others. / i don't hope that it's really difficult that
>>  a single person learns the reason of the others.)
>... 'e' Qatlhqu' ...
>/Qatlh/ doesn't take an object.  You don't "be difficult a thing".
>The "for" in your sentence can be handled with the suffix -meH.
>latlh meq ghojmeH nuv mob  Qatlhqu' Qu' ...
>"The tesk is difficult in order for a single person to learn another's
>Qatlhqu'  latlh meq ghojmeH nuv mob  Qu' ...
>"The task of a single person learning another's reason is difficult."

again my esperanto-mistake (in esperanto you can say "it's difficult 
a thing." (but you don't use it very often)).

so /-meH/ is semantically equal to /-vaD/, right?

>  > naDevHa' chaHtaH 'ej Hol rapHa'qu' jatlh 'ej Qobqu' 'op chaH.
>  > (they are so far away and speak a very different language, and some
>  > of them are very dangerous.)
>naDev is a noun.  -Ha' is a verb suffix.

jes, but the noun /naDev/ can act like an adverbial, which sometimes 
can take /-Ha/ (like /batlh/). /-Ha/ is a rover, isn't it?

>Hop "far"

anyway, now i'll try to use /Hop/.

>rapHa' "unalike"
>pIm "different"

now i'm back in italy and i don't have an english dictionary.
what's the difference (or the unalikenes) between "unalike" and "different"?
anyway, i'll try to use /pIm/ instead of /rapHa'/.

>  > maHvaD Qapla''a' roj? DloraH, nuq DaQub?
>>  (is peace possible for us? DloraH, what do you think?)
>Qapla' is a noun, "success".

but /-la'/ means also */-lu'laH/, so /Qapla'/ means "it can work", doesn't it?

>DuH "possible"
>maHvaD DuH'a' roj?  "Is peace possible for us?"
>QaQ roj.  qaq rojna', 'ach ghaytanHa' roj qo'vam.

(doesn't there have to be a verb in /ghaytanHa' roj qo'vam/, or can 
/ghaytanHa'/ mean "to be unlikely"?)

HISlaH. vaj qo' wIchoHnIS neH. 'ach latlh Doch.
(yes. so we simply have to change the world. but that's another thing.)

how do you say: that's another topic. ?
how do you say: what you are talking about?


Back to archive top level