tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Mar 06 17:55:15 2002
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: -bogh
From: "qe'San (temp ADSL email)" <[email protected]>
> > 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
>
> For this meaning I can see that but the "and" in there make me feel
> something is missing , like another sentence. I was thinking of it as what
> he did after the hitting took place, no more.
Oh, I see what's confusing you. We've learned that the so-called "sentence
conjunctions" actually conjoin verbs, not just sentences. (Please don't ask
me to prove it -- the last time someone doubted me on this, I spent an hour
tracking down eight or so instances of what I mean. Just take my word for
it!)
For example,
HoHbogh SuvwI' 'ej qabDaj 'angbe'bogh
warrior who kills and who doesn't reveal his face
There is no sentence here, there is just a complicated noun phrase. The
VERBS are being joined by /'ej/. If this were split apart, it might be
HoHbogh SuvwI'
the warrior who kills
qabDaj 'angbe'bogh SuvwI'
the warrior who doesn't show his face
> Maybe I'm getting tied up in
> the English and not the tlhIngan. I assume the 2nd [-bogh] is there
because
> of the way this is parsed but does it have to be there in every use of
> [-bogh].
This is one of the things you can elide in English and not in Klingon.
Here's a simpler example:
"We are hungry and thirsty."
You CAN'T say /maghung 'ej 'oj/. You HAVE to say /maghung 'ej ma'oj/.
Likewise, you can't drop Type 9 verb suffixes. You couldn't say
*HoHbogh SuvwI' 'ej qabDaj 'angbe'
(but you COULD say /HoH SuvwI' 'ej qabDaj 'ang/, because that's two separate
sentences).
> I honestly didn't think it applied to the "fled" part although it is
likely
> I would of missed that if I had.. Thanks for the step up.
I assumed you meant "the man who had hit the officer and who had then
fled" -- not a complete sentence.
SuStel
Stardate 2179.2