tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Jun 07 15:54:59 2002
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: [KLBC] SISpu' [KLBC]
Nathan wrote:
> > Yeah, but I wanted to specify that of all the explanations I had heard so
> > far, this was the easiest for me to understand...
> >
> > tlhIngan Hol mu'tlheghmey DaQIjchu'ta'. vIyajchoH.
> >
> > (Does that imply that I understand the previous sentance, or the
> > subject of conversation?)
DloraH:
>I read it as you now understand the tlhIngan Hol mu'tlheghmey being
>referenced.
Right. Using {vI-} on {yaj} implies an object (him, her, it, them). Since
nothing else has been mentioned here, this object has to be "them": i.e.
"the Klingon sentences" {tlhIngan Hol mu'tlheghmey} from the first
sentence. If you mean something else - say, DloraH's explanation or how
Klingon sentences work in general - either state it explicitly or use the
"no object" prefix {jI-}. E.g.:
DaH vIyajchoH
*Now* I understand them!
*Now* I understand it! (something specific)
DaH jIyajchoH
*Now* I understand! (in general)
If you mean that you understand the explanation (a noun we lack), use a
dependent clause linked by the useful suffix {-mo'}:
DaQIjchu'ta'mo' jIyajchoH.
Because you have explained them so well, I understand.
Here again you use the "no object" prefix {jI-} since the dependent clause
is not the object of {yaj}. To make it the object, turn it into a
"sentence as object", with the conjunction {'e'} as the immediate object of
{yaj}, which now must carry the object prefix {vI-}:
DaQIjchu'ta' 'e' vIyaj.
I understand that you have explained them well.
(You have explained them well. I understand that.)
Note, however, that this merely acknowledges that DloraH has explained them
well (perhaps somebody told you), not that you necessarily understand the
explanation.
[How's that for a long answer to a simple question? DaH jItamchoH. <g>]
--
Voragh
Ca'Non Master of the Klingons