tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Jun 07 15:54:59 2002

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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


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?)

>I read it as you now understand the tlhIngan Hol mu'tlheghmey being 

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 

[How's that for a long answer to a simple question?  DaH jItamchoH. <g>]

Ca'Non Master of the Klingons

Back to archive top level