tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Mar 06 17:55:15 2002
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
From: "qe'San (temp ADSL email)" <qeSan@btclick.com>
> > 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
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
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
> of the way this is parsed but does it have to be there in every use of
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
> I honestly didn't think it applied to the "fled" part although it is
> 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.
- Re: -bogh
- From: Steven Boozer <firstname.lastname@example.org>