tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Jun 11 15:22:53 2003
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: lugh'a' mughghachvam?
- From: "Dallas McPhee" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: lugh'a' mughghachvam?
- Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 16:16:20 -0400
thanks that helped alot
could u send me a alphapit
>From: "d'Armond Speers" <[email protected]>
>Reply-To: [email protected]
>To: [email protected]
>Subject: Re: lugh'a' mughghachvam?
>Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 14:06:46 -0600
>
>
>>What can I say, I'm just not doing a very good job at explaining what I
>>mean.
>
>ghobe', bIQapbej. maQum. maja'chuq. loQ maghoH, loQ mangach. Dun!
>
>>"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?
>
>"If English has a verb EV, and Klingon has a verb KV which matches the EV
>past participle (the EV-ed form), then KV + {-moH} will match EV."
>
>Is that what you're saying? Because what I heard was slightly different:
>
>"If Klingon has a verb form KV that matches an English verb form EV-ed,
>then KV + {-moH} will match EV." I guess you're saying that words like
>"be skilled" and "be absentminded" don't break this rule because they're
>not past participle forms (EV-ed forms) in the first place; they're just
>adjectives that happen to end in "-ed." My point was that KV (which is
>translated with an English form ending in "-ed") doesn't necessarily mean
>that KV + {-moH} will match that same English form without the "-ed" (in
>the non-past participle case).
>
>I understand the desire to relate things to what you know in English.
>Hopefully we can help you get past it to the point where you're thinking,
>speaking and understanding in Klingon without having that extra step of
>going through English to get in the way.
>
>>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)
>
>I'm often told that I have a confrontational style of learning (perhaps a
>Klingon trait). Get an idea, challenge it, see if it holds up. I'm not
>attacking any individual (well, not usually ;).
>
>>mulwI'
>
>--Holtej
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE*
>http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
>
_________________________________________________________________
Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail