tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Mar 14 16:43:53 2004
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC {chennISmoH}
- From: "QeS lagh" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: KLBC {chennISmoH}
- Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 10:42:55 +1000
- Bcc:
ghItlhpu' ngabwI':
>As Holtej, pagh, and marqoS were kind enough to point out for me, the
>correct way to say this is {vIchennISmoH}. It can be confusing, because of
>the possible English translations, but it really does become clear in
>context most of the time. When it isn't clear, it usually doesn't matter
>which translation is used. And if absolutely explicit understanding is
>desired, you can always recast to multiple sentences.
<I cause it to need to be created> 'oSmoHlu'chugh, mu'tlhegh vIyajHa' 'e'
vIHar. 'ach yajlaH vay'; pabHa'be' mu'tlheghvam.
I must be honest and say that I'd almost always read {vIchennISmoH} as "I
need to create it". I think that if someone intended to say "I cause it to
need to be created", I'd probably misunderstand it. (But as far as I can
tell, it's still good grammatical - and semantic - Klingon.)
cha' mu'tlhegh DoSmey 'oSmeH, {mojaq mIw} lo'nISlu'?
Now for a KLBC question of my own: Must the prefix trick be used to indicate
double direct objects? For instance, in causative transitive verbs? (eg.
{qagh vISopmoH } "I make him eat gagh".)
Savan.
QeS lagh
_________________________________________________________________
Get Extra Storage in 10MB, 25MB, 50MB and 100MB options now! Go to
http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-au&page=hotmail/es2