tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Feb 22 04:44:30 2007

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: Dilbert Comic in Klingon for February 10, 2007

MorphemeAddict ([email protected])

• From: [email protected]
• Subject: Re: Dilbert Comic in Klingon for February 10, 2007
• Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 07:43:04 EST

In a message dated 2/21/2007 9:26:53 PM Central Standard Time, 
[email protected] writes:

> It seems to me that what Dilbert
> wants to say is {jIchenHa'moH} "I will become destroyed", but is this
> grammatical?  There seems no example of {chen} without an object.


{jIchenHa'moH} means 'I (will/do/did) destroy' (to use your gloss), not 'I 
will become destroyed'.
{chen} takes no object, while {chenmoH} always has an object, even if it's 
only implied.

lay'tel SIvten

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: Dilbert Comic in Klingon for February 10, 2007
    • From: Steven Boozer <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Klingon WOTD: ghonDoq (noun)
• Next by Date: RE: Dilbert Comic in Klingon for February 10, 2007
• Previous by thread: bIyem'a'? (or being rude)
• Next by thread: RE: Dilbert Comic in Klingon for February 10, 2007
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

Back to archive top level