tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Jun 11 13:44:02 2003
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: lugh'a' mughghachvam?
jIjatlh:
> "be V-d" + {-moH} = "V".
jatlh Holtej:
> Not necessarily. This is what I was trying to express in my earlier
> message. For some words in English there is a "V" form for the
> "be V-d" + {-moH} case. So, "be pleased" + {-moH} = "please". But not
> always. "be early" + {-moH} != "early". "be late" + {-moH} != "late"
> but "be late" + {-moH} = "delay".
jIjatlh:
> But then again, "late" and "early" don't end in a "d", either. I said
> "V-d" to clarify that it should be [enter correct grammatical term
> here]. (Maybe I should've said "V-ed", btw.) A certain form of a transitive
> verb, usually ending in "d". Like "pleased", "bored" etc. I don't know what
> it's called in English.
>
> I guess my point was that when there's a "V-ed", there is also a "V"
> (otherwise there wouldn't be a V-ed, either). And you can translate "V"
> into Klingon by adding {-moH} to the Klingon equivalent of "V-ed".
jatlh Holtej:
> be absentminded -> *to absentmind
> be skilled -> *to skill
>
> I don't think it works.
What can I say, I'm just not doing a very good job at explaining what I mean.
"V-ed" is the past participle (so I hear) of the transitive verb "V". So
the formula is meant to be used in situations where Alice can "V" Bob,
rendering Bob "V-ed" as a result. I suppose Alice can't absentmind Bob?
Anyway, I really appreciate the criticism. I usually don't explain things
very well the first (second, third...) time because my theories seem so
simple to me that I think I can cover them with few words. One of my
weaknesses... But on the other hand I'm stubborn enough to explain them over in
detail until a) the others run away screaming or b) I'm proven wrong. :o)
mulwI'