tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun May 18 21:29:37 2003
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: SoSwI' vISuchtaHvIS...
- From: "QeS lagh" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: SoSwI' vISuchtaHvIS...
- Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 12:25:31 +1000
> > DaH wot lulajlu'bogh 'oH'a' <<ghoch>>? mu' <<ghochwI'>> 'ay' 'oH neH 'e'
> > vIHarpu'.
>
>bImujpu'. TKD 182-Daq tu'lu'.
>
>(Oh, and don't put a Type 7 verb suffix on the second verb of a Sentence as
>Object construction-TKD p. 66.)
qatlho'. On both counts. A type 7 suffix on a SAO construction is a mistake
I have made before; also a mistake I have made before is not carrying my
Klingon dictionaries with me. I just had one of those moments where I
thought "Hey, I haven't seen that one before".
>
> > 'ej pIj mojaq <<-luH>> leghlu''a'? <<qIb lengwI'vaD tlhIngan Hol>>
> > vIlaDtaHvIS, pab QaQ 'oH 'e' vIlaD ('ach rut leghlu'). DaH lulajlu''a'?
>
>pabqoqvam lajchu' buDwI' neH! reH latlh mIw tu'lu' <-luH> Dalo'
>DaneHchugh.
qaHar. not <-luH> vIlo'; naDevDaq Hoch tlhIngan Hol jatlhwI' vItlhob neH.
<<qIb lengwI'vaD tlhIngan Hol>> paqDaq <<pabqoq 'oH <-luH> >> 'e' ja' Marc
Okrand 'e' vISov. <<pab QaQ>> vIjatlhqa'Qo'; <<pab luyajlu'bogh>> vIlo'.
I believe you. I've never used <<-luH>> myself; there's got to be a reason
why <<-laH>> and <<-lu'>> are in the same class, even if we don't know the
precise reason. Okrand *does* say it is used (but bad grammar) in KGT; I
shouldn't have said "good", but "understandable" (if my Klingon sentence
above is <<pabna'>> in and of itself).
qavan.
QeS lagh
_________________________________________________________________
ninemsn Extra Storage is now available. Get five times more storage - 10MB
in your Hotmail account. Go to
http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/home&pgmarket=en-au