tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Sep 25 18:01:47 2004

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: (?) interrogative suffix on imperatives?

ngabwI' ([email protected]) [KLI Member] [Hol po'wI']

Sorry I've been so long about responding, but another member of the class of 
'04 (hurricane) is headed to Florida. If I've power still tomorrow morning, 
I will answer first thing. jIlay'.

--ngabwI'
Beginners' Grammarian
Klingon Language Institute
http://kli.org
HovpoH 702089.0
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Raik Lorenz" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, September 24, 2004 2:33 PM
Subject: KLBC: (?) interrogative suffix on imperatives?


>I wondered, wether the following constructions would work, maybe even in 
>the
> way suggested beneath each example:
>
>
>
> ?*HurDaq targh yItlhap'a'?
> Bring the targ out, will you? / Will you bring the targ out?
>
> ?*HurDaq targh yItlhap qar'a'?
> Bring the targ out, okay?
>
>
>
> I know that normally {HurDaq targh yItlhap!} is absolutely sufficient, but
> imagine a stressed {SoSoy} and an obnoxious, lazy {puqloDHom}. Would she
> maybe have other possibilities to give the utterance more emphasis 
> (excpting
> extra {'e'} constructions)?
> And I don't mean stuff like:
>
> DaH HurDaq targh DatlhapqangHa'chugh, ghe''orDaq DaghoSbej 'e' bIHeghDI'!
> }}:-)
>
>
> But the point I really out on is: Can the type-9 interrogative {'a'} be 
> used
> on any imperative constructions?
> Ferociously wild speculations are as welcome as canonic answers. ;)
>
>
> Satlho',
> -- qIno'rIq
>
>
> -- 
> GMX ProMail mit bestem Virenschutz http://www.gmx.net/de/go/mail
> +++ Empfehlung der Redaktion +++ Internet Professionell 10/04 +++
>
>
>
>

Back to archive top level