tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Dec 16 21:07:30 2007

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: jIHtaHbogh naDev vISovbe'

QeS 'utlh ([email protected]) 

There've been an awful lot of responses in a very short time, so forgive me if I lose track of a point that's already been made.

jItlhobpu', jIjatlh:
>Although if you accept that a type 5 noun suffix attaches to whole
>phrases in that way, what do you believe is wrong with {qach
>vIleghboghDaq}?

mujang SuStel, ja':
>The former is a name; the latter is not.

I think that interpretation dodges the issue rather than explaining it. {qep'a' wejDIch} might be a specific {qep'a'} and might be a name, but
it's also a perfectly grammatical Klingon phrase ("the third conference"),
and although we have no evidence either way, I tend towards the
interpretation that doesn't require setting up a special grammatical
rule for proper names.

I used to think that the ordinals were true adjectives (which Klingon
mostly lacks). Now, the universality of the passage from TKD that you
cite is somewhat questionable (since numbers of repetition are adverbs,
and not nouns), but the existence of a noun {cha'DIch} "second (in a
duel)" backs it up, so it seems the ordinals probably *are* nouns, and
as such might be more literally translated as "first one", "second one",
"third one", and so forth (and fifth for that matter!).

QeS 'utlh
tlhIngan Hol yejHaD pab po'wI'
(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

_________________________________________________________________
Your Future Starts Here. Dream it? Then be it! Find it at www.seek.com.au
http://a.ninemsn.com.au/b.aspx?URL=http%3A%2F%2Fninemsn%2Eseek%2Ecom%2Eau%2F%3Ftracking%3Dsk%3Ahet%3Ask%3Anine%3A0%3Ahot%3Atext&_t=764565661&_r=OCT07_endtext_Future&_m=EXT

Back to archive top level