tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Nov 06 04:39:04 2004

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: yuch

ngabwI' ([email protected])

• From: "ngabwI'" <[email protected]>
• Subject: Re: yuch
• Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2004 07:03:15 -0500
• References: <000701c4c336$52657e50$6501a8c0@SENARA> <[email protected]> <000801c4c3ea$434addc0$6501a8c0@SENARA>

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Regina Reusser" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, November 06, 2004 5:20 AM
Subject: Re: yuch

>> > yuch chIS, yuch qIj je tu'lu'.
>>
>> Don't you mean *lu*tu'lu'? (This is a *very* common mistake.)
> jImIS... *TKD* 'ay' 4.2.5Daq {naDev puqpu' tu'lu'} vIlaD. vaj lugh'a' 
> {naDev
> puqpu' lutu'lu'}?

lughbej {lutu'lu'}. In KGT, MO explains that this error is made so 
frequently among Klingons that it has almost become acceptable, which 
provided a nice backfit for things like what you found in TKD.

>> yuch Seghvam DamuS'a'?
> HIja'. yuch nap, qIj vImaS.

We haven't seen verbs of quality strung together in this way in canon. The 
easiest way to do this is to simply repeat the noun:
{yuch nap, yuch qIj je vImaS.}

{'ej muq 'oS *yuch nap*? "Milk chocolate" 'oS'a'? chaq "chocolate w/ nothing 
in it" 'oS.}

--ngabwI'
Beginners' Grammarian
Klingon Language Institute
http://kli.org
HovpoH 702259.2 

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: yuch
    • From: Steven Boozer <[email protected]>

• References:
  • yuch
    • From: "Regina Reusser" <[email protected]>
  • Re: yuch
    • From: "ngabwI'" <[email protected]>
  • Re: yuch
    • From: "Regina Reusser" <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: yuch
• Next by Date: Re: yuch
• Previous by thread: Re: yuch
• Next by thread: Re: yuch
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

Back to archive top level