tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Sep 12 09:44:00 2002
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: lugh
Quvar wrote:
>In on of my latest mails (I deleted it) I wrote
>
> {QaghHommeyHeylIjmo' qalughmoH}
>
>Now I just saw that the object of {lughmoH} is "something", so I can
I don't have {lughmoH} as a separate entry from Okrand in my notes. Where
did you see that defined?
>{mu'tlheghlIj vIlughmoH} "I cause your sentence to be correct" but
>not {SoH qalughmoH} "I cause you to be correct"
>
>Any evidence for that?
I know of know evidence either way, though we have long been using
{lughmoH} for "correct (something)" on the list. (Grammarians need to be
able to say "I've corrected your sentences.")
All the examples I know of are for the stem {lugh} "be correct, be right":
bIlugh
You're right. TKD
bIlughbe'
You're wrong. TKD
reH lugh charghwI'
The victor is always right. TKW
lugh; Sor rur
correct as a tree KGT
Until we see something to the contrary, I think you're safe in saying
{qalughmoH} "I correct you", {cholughmoH 'e' DangIl'a'?} "Do you dare
correct me?", etc.
--
Voragh
Ca'Non Master of the Klingons