tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Jul 20 08:49:59 2002
[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].
Do'.
> > 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
>reason."
>or
>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?
sts.