tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat May 30 21:41:05 2009

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

Re: nuq bach?

qa'vaj (darqang99@gmail.com)



On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 6:38 AM, Rohan F <qeslagh@hotmail.com> wrote:
> ghItlhpu' qa'vaj, jatlh:
> >The entity that the shooter is intending to hit when he shoots seems like
> a
> >natural {-vaD} to me.  But, I don't have any problem erasing that notion
> >once I reach the point of being convinced (which is not yet).
>
> There's an example in "The Undiscovered Country" that might convince you:
>
> Qo'noS wa'Daq baHta'
> "They fired [intentionally] upon Kronos One." (ST:VI)
>
[...]

>
>
> ...ray' HopDaq bachlu'meH chuqna' ghurmoH naQvam
> "This [stock] serves to ... increase the effective range for distance
> targeting." (S14)
>
>
maj.  These combined with the ST5 line from Voragh make a pretty conclusive
case for {-Daq}.

But it wasn't that {-Daq] is what Klingons use with {bach} that I was
wanting to be convinced of.

(from SuStel's comment mainly) I'm left with the impression that if we had
no canon for {bach}, and didn't know that Klingons use {-Daq}, {-vaD}
wouldn't work anyway for some reason intrinsic in the definition of {-vaD}.
If that's the case, then there is something wrong with my understanding of
{-vaD}.

If on the other hand it's simply a matter that, yes {-vaD} might be expected
to work grammatically, but Klingons actually use {-Daq}; then no problem.


-- 
qa'vaj
qo'lIj DachenmoHtaH






Back to archive top level