tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Jan 30 02:43:14 2006
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Subject: Re: -be' or -Qo'? I forget what the acronym was for the front... lol
- From: "QeS 'utlh" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Subject: Re: -be' or -Qo'? I forget what the acronym was for the front... lol
- Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 20:42:39 +1000
- Bcc:
jatlh Philip Newton:
>{qamuSHa'Qo'} is "I refuse to mis-hate you"; {qamuSHa'be'} is "I do not
>mis-hate you". See the difference? Both are correct, but
>they mean different things.You might also wish to consider simply
>saying {qamuS} - "I hate you".(I'd say that translating {muSHa'}
>as "love" obscures the real meaning of the Klingon root.)
jang naHQun, ja':
>-be', -Qo', and -Ha' are all rovers. As far as I know,
>you can't use more than one same-type verb suffix. Can you?
From what (little) we've seen, rovers do not obey this rule. TKD itself
gives {pIHoHvIpbe'qu'} "we are definitely not afraid to kill you" (p.48).
Of course, further compounding and addition of rovers is more speculative,
but I would have no problem with {jotHa'be'vIpqu'Qo'} "he refuses to be at
all afraid not to put it back up".
QeS 'utlh
tlhIngan Hol yejHaD pabpo' / Grammarian of the Klingon Language Institute
not nItoj Hemey ngo' juppu' ngo' je
(Old roads and old friends will never deceive you)
- Ubykh Hol vIttlhegh
_________________________________________________________________
New year, new job ? there's more than 100,00 jobs at SEEK
http://a.ninemsn.com.au/b.aspx?URL=http%3A%2F%2Fninemsn%2Eseek%2Ecom%2Eau&_t=752315885&_r=Jan05_tagline&_m=EXT