tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Sep 18 09:40:21 2009
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Relative clause in a relative clause
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 12:34 PM, Steven Boozer <[email protected]>wrote:
> qurgh:
> >> Doch cho'angbogh vISov 'e' vIHar
> >> I believe I know the thing you show me
>
> lay'tel SIvten:
> >You could shorten {vISov 'e' vIHar} to {vISovlaw'}. It's not exactly the
> >same, but OTOH, is "Har/believe" a genuine belief, or merely equivalent
> >to "I think" or even "perhaps"?
>
> I agree about {Har} "believe". Our sole example is:
>
> qaHarbe'; bo'Dagh'a' Dalo'
> I don't believe you; you're using a big scoop
> (i.e. "You're exaggerating") KGT
>
> You could also say {... 'e' vIQub} "I think that...":
>
> st.k 7/01/97: All four words asked about ... can be used in the
> construction {S 'e' V}, where S is a sentence, {'e'} is the pronoun (that)
> which refers to a previous topic (in this case S), and V is one of the verbs
> listed above (as well as some others). If the sentence (S) is {tlhIngan Hol
> Dajatlh} "you speak Klingon", it's OK to say... {tlhIngan Hol Dajatlh 'e'
> vIQub} "I think that you speak Klingon"
>
> How this differs from {tlhIngan Hol Dajatlhlaw'} is unclear. (An unspoken
> thought vs. a belief perhaps?)
>
>
> --
> Voragh
> Canon Master of the Klingons
>
>
Thanks, that helps with that sentence. Do you have any information on the
double -bogh phrase I wrote?
qurgh