tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Mar 25 16:31:33 2004
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: That's not canon
- From: "De'vID jonwI'" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: That's not canon
- Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 19:30:52 -0500
- Bcc:
weQqul:
>BTW you have mentioned a few times lately that you are not at home. if you
>dont mind my asking (since i am now very curious) why are you not at home?
DuSaQ'a'Daq jIHaDmo' juHwIj vIDabbe'. naDevvo' paqmeywIj HochHom
vInaw'laHbe'.
(Note: I am using <DuSaQ'a'> for "university".)
weQqul:
>without knowing this, you answered a question i had earlier. What was meant
>by, " headless <-bogh> clauses ". So you mean we are supposed to use bogh
>only
>with nouns? then i made another mistake in my writings today. (and i dont
>know
>how to get rid of these squiggly lines) lol. so if i want to say a person
>who
>speaks klingon language, i say : tlhIngan Hol jatlhwI'pu'bogh....?
What squiggly lines are you referring to?
A person who speaks the Klingon language would be <tlhIngan Hol
jatlhbogh nuv>. A Klingon language speaker would be <tlhIngan
Hol jatlhwI'>. You don't need both <-wI'> and <-bogh>. Also
when you put <-wI'> on a verb the whole thing becomes a noun, so
you couldn't stick additional verbal suffixes after <-wI'> anyways.
(Since <-pu'> is both a noun and a verb suffix with different
meanings, it would be confusing otherwise!)
I think I may be confusing you even more with my description of
headless <-bogh> clauses. I think you were using <-bogh> correctly
before, so don't let details like "headless <-bogh> clauses" throw
you off.
I'll try to explain it again. Let's say you have a word <qIp>.
This is a verb. In the sentence <muqIp yaS>, there is a verb
<qIp> with a prefix <mu-> indicating someone-does-something-to-me,
and a noun <yaS> "officer". The sentence means "the officer
hits me". You stick <-bogh> onto the verb to make <muqIpbogh
yaS>, "the officer *who* hits me". Now this whole <-bogh> clause
<muqIpbogh yaS> acts like a noun, because <yaS> is a noun (the
head noun of the <-bogh> clause). So for example, I could say
<muqIpbogh yaS Dalegh> "You see the officer who hits me". Note
that the sentence is <X Dalegh> "You see X", with <muqIpbogh yaS>
playing the role of the object, X.
The whole reason that headless <-bogh> clauses seems wrong
is because when you drop the <yaS>, you end up with *<muqIpbogh>
"(he) who hits me", which looks like a verb. It's missing the
head noun which would make the whole clause into a noun (i.e.
the main part is now <qIp> rather than <yaS>). So if I say
*<muqIpbogh Dalegh> "You see (he) who hits me", I'm sticking what
looks like a verb into the object of a sentence, and that seems
wrong. I think it's perfectly understandable, but it does look odd
and may contradict the rules.
--
De'vID
_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your e-mail with MSN Premium. Get 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines