[35] in tlhIngan-Hol
Grammarian responds
dcctdw@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (dcctdw@ATHENA.MIT.EDU)
Sun Feb 16 15:17:44 1992
From: ima.ima.isc.com!krankor@village.boston.ma.us (Captain Krankor)
To: tlhIngan-Hol@IMA.ISC.COM
Date: Sat, 31 Aug 91 15:28:29 -0400
QebtIQ wrote:
>juppu'wI':
>
>tlhIngan mu'tlheghmey "TNG"Daq vImugh vIneH 'ach mu'ghomHomvam machqu'Daq
>Hoch mu'mey vItu'laHbe' 'e' muqejqu'moHtaH. yapbe'qu' mu'ghommaj 'ej vaj
>mu'ghom chu' wIghajnIStaH. tugh mu'ghom chu' wIHev 'e' DaH vIQoy 'e'
>muQuchqu'moH. wIneHtaH. DaH wIloSlI'. vaj pe'IQQo' 'ach peQuch: tugh
>ghItlhlu' rIntaH!
>
>loDnI'pu'wI' be'nI'pu'wI' je, batlh'a' yInej!
>
>(Comments and critiques, anyone? chaq soH, HoD Qanqor?)
>
>--QebtIQ
I presume that the call for comments and critiques was looking for
comments on grammar rather than content, though both could receive
comment. For now let's stick with grammar.
This was an excellently written letter; in fact, I found only one error
therein: In the first sentence, the locative ("TNG"Daq) should have
been at the beginning of the sentence. Thus:
"TNG"Daq tlhIngan mu'tlheghmey vImugh vIneH
Clearly, the object of vImugh is supposed to be tlhIngan mu'tlheghmey, so
it should immediately precede the verb, whereas locative things almost
always go at the beginning of the sentence.
--Captain Krankor
