tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Aug 26 04:36:59 2004

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

• Index by Date
• Index by Thread
• Index by Author

Re: waH

MorphemeAddict ([email protected])

• From: [email protected]
• Subject: Re: waH
• Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 07:36:18 EDT

In a message dated 2004-08-25 5:11:38 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
[email protected] writes:

> > lay'SIv:
> > >I would have said: {jIH SoHbe'chugh, ...}
> > 
> > Hmm... they both seem right. 
> 
> Yes, I think so too.
> Same situation as with
> 
> {'Iv SoH}
> and
> {SoH 'Iv}
> 
> Quvar.
> 
I don't think they are the same.  Both {'Iv} and {SoH} can be verbs, but both 
sentences only work when the verb is second.  Negate these and you get {'Iv 
SoHbe'} and {SoH 'Ivbe'} ("You aren't who?" and "Who aren't you?").  Neither 
{'Ivbe' SoH} nor {SoHbe' 'Iv} makes sense because the subject and verb don't 
agree.

For the same reason I don't think it's grammatical to say {jIHbe'chugh SoH}.  
(And which Voragh as agreed to also.)
lay'tel SIvten

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: waH
    • From: "...Paul" <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: waH
• Next by Date: Klingon WOTD: QI'lop (n)
• Previous by thread: Re: waH
• Next by thread: Re: waH
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

Back to archive top level