[110156] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [tlhIngan Hol] SuStel please tell me, I need to know..
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (mayqel qunenoS)
Mon Jul 31 10:20:13 2017
X-Original-To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org
In-Reply-To: <410695ca-5050-1454-5f1d-2beee289453e@trimboli.name>
From: mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2017 17:20:09 +0300
To: tlhIngan Hol mailing list <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
Reply-To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org
SuStel:
> jatlhqu'meH tlhIngan Hol naQ law' Quenya naQ puS
jIH:
> Or is it rather "in order that he/they speaks/speak a lot, klingon is more complete than quenya" ?
SuStel
> My intention was is the last one
Perhaps the reason of my confusion, becomes clearer now. If instead of
{jatlhqu'meH tlhIngan Hol naQ law' Quenya naQ puS}, we had
{jatlhqu'lu'meH tlhIngan Hol naQ law' Quenya naQ puS} meaning "in
order for someone to speak..", then I could have understood the
meaning better. Reading the {jatlhqu'meH tlhIngan Hol naQ law' Quenya
naQ puS} and understanding "in order that he/they speaks/speak a lot,
klingon is more complete than quenya", I begun to wonder who the
"he/they" was/were. Let alone that I did the mistake of thinking that
the {tlhIngan Hol} was part of the {meH}ed construction, as opposed to
the law'/puS construction.
qunnoq
On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 4:35 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
> On 7/31/2017 8:38 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
>
> SuStel:
>> jatlhqu'meH tlhIngan Hol naQ law' Quenya naQ puS
>
> SuStel let me ask you.. At this sentence, the {jatlhqu'meH tlhIngan Hol} is
> a {meH}ed noun, something like {QongmeH Duj} ?
>
> Or does it mean "in order that klingon speaks a lot..", which sounds
> somewhat strange ?
>
> Or is it rather "in order that he/they speaks/speak a lot, klingon is more
> complete than quenya" ?
>
> My intention was is the last one, though remember, -qu' doesn't only mean a
> lot, it also (and perhaps primarily) intensifies the element it's attached
> to. I intended the intensification. For SPEAKING (as opposed to something
> else) Klingon is more complete than Quenya. The something else is described
> in the next sentence: mu' mung qun je HaDmeH for studying word origin and
> history.
>
> If you interpreted jatlhqu'meH tlhIngan Hol as a -meH'd noun (I did not
> intend that), you'd still get more less the same meaning. Klingon for
> SPEAKING (as opposed to something else) is more complete than Quenya. The
> -qu' wouldn't mean quite what I wanted, though, since I wasn't comparing
> Klingon for speaking with Klingon for studying word origins; I was comparing
> Klingon versus Quenya for speaking and Klingon versus Quenya for word
> origins.
>
> --
> SuStel
> http://trimboli.name
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
> tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org
> http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
>
_______________________________________________
tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org
http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
