tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Jan 26 07:55:26 2003
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC (vay' joq) mojaq "luH"
ghItlh ngabwI'
ng>QonoSvamvaD mu'tlhegh [...] ngeH DloraH
{QonoSvamvaD} "for this journal"?
ng>"-luH" chenmoHmeH, mojaqmey "-lu'", "-laH" je tay'moHlaw'.
bIlugh.
ng> 'ach *canon*Daq vISamlaHbe'. *canon*Daq tu'lu''a', pagh chenmoH'a' DloraH?
That's described in KGT page 181.
This is an "intentionally ungrammatical" form, using {-laH} "able" an {-lu'} "indefinite subject" together.
You cannot use these suffixes at once, because they are both type 5. But sometimes, when you wanna say that an "indefinite subject" is "able" to do s.th., you get in
trouble.
The example from DloraH is "one can read it".
{laDlaH} "he can read it"
{laDlu'} "someone reads it", "it is read"
Now, "it can be read" is both ideas together, either {laDla'} or {laDluH}.
WARNING: this is totally ungrammatical!
KGT adds:
"their inappropriateness, the way they grate on the Klingon ear, is exactly what gives them elocutionary clout. A visitor may hear one of these odd suffixes occasionally,
but, as with other intentionally ungrammatical forms, it is best to avoid using them until one is extremely comfortable with the nuances of Klingon style."
I believe that DloraH is. ;-)
The standard, or grammatical way to express such ideas as "one can do..." is done with word {vay'} "someone" as the subject:
{laDlaH vay'}
"Somebody can read it."
Quvar
Beginners' Grammarian
ghojwI'pu'wI' vISaH