tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Mar 06 09:52:35 2002

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: -bogh

From: <>
> > But what if I was talking about the "he" who hit the officer?
> >  What if I
> > wanted to say, "He who hit the officer fled?"
> >
> > Haw'pu' yaS qIppu'bogh.

I'm sure this would always be interpreted as "The officer who had been hit

My own preference with this question is always to use an explicit noun (not
even a pronoun).

Haw'pu' yaS qIppu'bogh loD'e'.
The man who had hit the officer fled.

If it's not a /loD/ you're talking about, substitute your noun of choice.

> Personally I would introduce "then" to show order of action and said:
> yaS qIppu'bogh ghIq Haw'pu'

> I believe the natural translation should be "He who hit the
> officer then fled".   But I think you are right and you would need the
> subject of fled specified . . . .

I hope I've snipped without losing your context.

If what you're trying for is "He who hit the officer and then fled," where
both hitting the officer and fleeing have the head noun of "he," then you
have incorrectly used /ghIq/ as a conjunction.  Here's how I would say that,
including my use of an explicit noun:

yaS qIppu'bogh loD'e' 'ej ghIq Haw'pu'bogh
the man who had hit the officer and then had fled

This is just a very long noun phrase, and could be used in a sentence:

tuH yaS qIppu'bogh loD'e' 'ej ghIq Haw'pu'bogh.
The man who had hit the officer and then had fled was ashamed.

Remember to use /-bogh/ on every verb that needs it; you can't elide it as
you might elide the equivalent in English.

Stardate 2178.3

Back to archive top level