tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Dec 16 02:06:27 2007

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: poH taD pagh poH bIr

Thorwald Peeters ([email protected])

• From: "Thorwald Peeters" <[email protected]>
• Subject: Re: poH taD pagh poH bIr
• Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 11:03:27 +0100 (CET)
• User-agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.11

<citaat van="QeS 'utlh">

> lughchu' Doq: Daqmey SarDaq Sar "winter". Australia vIDab, 'ej naDev
> bIrqu'be'bej. qaStaHvIS DIS 1982 vengwIjDaq loQ peD, 'ach yavDaq pumpa'
> tetpu'. jIyIntaHvIS naDev not peD. naDev {poH bIr} {jarmey bIr} joq neH
> vIlo'. lughbe'chu' {taD}, not taDmo' bIQ. Daq DaDabbogh qellu'chugh, chaq
> lughchu' {poH taD} {jarmey taD} joq.

Not to bite the hand that "feeds" me, but isn't {bIrqu'be'bej} illegal?
both {qu'} and {be'} are rovers, and type 9.
I have been taught/learned that two suffixes of the same type are not to
be used in the same verb construction.

> SKI: In much of Australia {bIr} is appropriate rather than {taD}.

> QeS 'utlh
> tlhIngan Hol yejHaD pab po'wI'
> (Grammarian of the Klingon Language Institute)


-- 
Thorwald Peeters

• Prev by Date: pu'jIn
• Next by Date: Re: jIHtaHbogh naDev vISovbe'
• Previous by thread: Re: poH taD pagh poH bIr
• Next by thread: Re: poH taD pagh poH bIr
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

Back to archive top level