tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Mar 16 08:41:40 2002
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: QoghIj 'Iw nIjmoHHey SIQpu' quchoywI'
----- Original Message -----
From: "DloraH" <[email protected]>
> > Subject: QoghIj 'Iw nIjmoHHey SIQpu' quchoywI'
>
> nIj is a verb. It looks like you're tying to use it as a verb; and you're
> using both verb and noun suffixes on it.
>
> quch is "kidnap". You want qoch "partner".
I wonder if that would be classed as a profound error as in what it did to
Suzy...
> > cha'maH wa' Hu' QoghIj 'Iw nIjmoHHey SIQpu' quchoywI'
> > Three weeks ago My wife suffered a possible stroke.
>
> cha'maH wa' Hu' does work; we also have the word ret "time period
> ago".
> wej Hogh ret ...
> Both work.
>
> Even tho half of my ancestors on both sides have died from stroke, I
> don't know the actual medical occurence. I sure someone else could
> comment on describing a stroke before I could look it up on the net.
I'm sorry to hear that.. I think we've been really lucky as Suzy seems to be
getting back to normal, if there is such a thing.
> > 'e' vIQuchHa'qu'moH
> > This caused me to be unhappy.
>
> vI- is [I-it]. "I caused it, the previous sentence, to be very unhappy."
> Remember Object-Verb-Subject. But before you flip this around, 'e' can
> only be the object. You can try words like wanI' or ghu'.
> muQuchHa'qu'moH wanI'.
> Or you could just simply say, jI'IQ.
Ah I see.. I had 'e' in the object position visually but not in my
English... I think I started wanting to use [-'egh] but that can't have an
object so despensed with it without thinking the rest didn't work either...
Thanks.
> Or you could just simply say, jI'IQ.
vIparHa'
In a 1:1 conversation could you imagine that a Klingon might have said that
by just saying:
'e' vIparHa'
or is that subject best steared clear of?
>
> > wejmaH Soch ben ghaH neH je
> > She's only 37
>
> You have no verb in this sentence.
I tried to use ghaH as the verb "she is" have I got that wrong? or is it
that I can't use [wejmaH Soch ben] as the object of pronouns in this way?
NUM: wejmaH Soch: thirty Soch
N: ben: years old
V: ghaH: she is
ADV: neH: only,
> bogh "born"
> wejmaH Soch ben bogh.
I'm sure I've seen something on how to talk about age was it in HolQeD or
one of the books?
> > bong jIchaw''eghpu'. ghot QeH vIDa jIH
> > I unintentionally allowed my self to get aggravated
>
> jIQeHchoH. "I became angry."
> If you want to keep the longer description,
> jIQeHchoH bong 'e' vIchaw'. "I accidentally permitted that I became
> angry."
>
> jISeH'eghbe'. jIQeHchoH. "I did not control myself. I became angry."
>
> jIQeHchoH 'e' vIbotlaHbe'. "I was not able to prevent that I became
> angry."
Thanks... As I had made use of it, are there any examples on how to use
[Da -behave as] ?
> > Do' pIvchoH ghaH
> > She has begun to get a little better
>
> good.
pItlho'
> > vay' vImawchugh quvwIj vIchermeH tIqwIj vI'ang
> > If I have offended anyone
> > I show you my heart In order to re-establish my honour .
>
> The klingon doesn't imply the [re-] on re-establish. It is just "...in
> order to establish my honor"; which I think still works. You could add
the
> suffix -qa', vIcherqa'meH.
Thanks.. My notes did have the -qa' ..
Of course that has to mean I had established honour to start with...
No comments required on the latter ;-)
> > PS despite the subject matter I would appreciate constructive comment
> > on HolwI'
>
> -wI' is used in reference to beings capable of using language. A
> language itself doesn't speak, so we would use -wIj.
Thanks another silly mistake..
Someone sent me an email the other day with [qa'wI']
Is this an acceptable use of -wI' or in this instance down to the
individuals perspective?
> You are doing good.
qavan
> DloraH, BG
qe'San