tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Mar 27 11:24:55 2003
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: More than one rover?
Christoph wrote:
>While reading TKD again, I noticed that on page 48/49 the example
>"nuQaw'qu'be' " is given. And although it clearly contains TWO rovers,
>pojwI' (the program) does not mark it as wrong.
>
>Does that mean then, that unlike other suffixes rovers may be used more
>than once per word? It surely would be fitting, as the two rovers (-qu'
>and -be' in this example) do not exclude each other, as the other
>suffixes do.
Correct. As Okrand said on startrek.klingon (11/97), "Since the negative
suffixes are Rovers, they follow different rules..." There's a sequence
showing "the roving nature of {-qu'}" in TKD on the same pages (48ff) where
varying the order of suffixes affects the meaning:
pIHoHvIpbe'qu'
we are NOT afraid to kill you.
pIHoHvIpqu'be'
we are not AFRAID to kill you.
pIHoHqu'vIpbe'
we are not afraid to KILL you.
Although I don't know of any examples from canon, this also applies to
other Rovers, {-Ha'} for example:
HIyajHa'Qo'
Do not misunderstand me!
ghobe', jIjatlhHa'be'.
No, I did not mis-speak ("say the wrong thing").
qabuSHa'be'.
I am not ignoring you.
--
Voragh
Ca'Non Master of the Klingons