[37] in tlhIngan-Hol

home help back first fref pref prev next nref lref last post

Grammarian responds...

dcctdw@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (dcctdw@ATHENA.MIT.EDU)
Sun Feb 16 15:18:07 1992

From: ima.ima.isc.com!krankor@village.boston.ma.us (Captain Krankor)
To: tlhIngan-Hol@IMA.ISC.COM
Date:    Sat, 31 Aug 91 16:47:34 -0400

Ok, here we have a letter from Tzoq Mrekazh, and a correction from
VarSan.  Now let me correct the correction {{:-)

>Tzoq Mrekazh asked for comment on the following:
>========================================================================
>> <Tzoq Mrekazh> vIpong jIH.  qanada tlhIngan HIvwI'ghom wImuvtu' jIH
>>be'nalHeywI' je.  <Lyras DevwI'> pong be'nalHeywI'.  muvuQtaH tlhIngan Hol
>>tlhIngan mu'ghom vItu'DI' 'ach not vIlaDta'be'.
>>
>> My name is Tzoq Mrekazh.  My consort and I have joined the Klingon Assault
>>Group of Canada.  My consort's name is Lyras DevwI'.  The Klingon language
>>fascinated me when I discovered the Klingon Dictioniary, though I had not
>>read the dictionary before.
>=========================================================================
>
>SalIH'egh ('I introduce myself to you all', with dative sense in Sa-)

SalIH'egh might be an improvement over the original jIlIH'egh, but I
don't think there's anything inherently wrong with using jI in this
case. Either works for me.

>
>"Tzoq Mrezazh" pongwIj. (with noun construction; otherwise: jIponglu'
>                         'I am called'?)

This is incorrect, as my recent posting on the subject explained. Also,
if you use the verb construction with lu', the prefix must be vI, not jI,
as I explained a couple weeks ago.  Thus, this should be either:

"Tzoq Mrezazh" 'oH pongwIj'e' -or- "Tzoq Mrezazh" vIponglu'

>qanaDa tlhIngan HIvwI' ghom wImuvta' jIH be'nalHeywI' je.
>"Lyras DevwI'" be'nalHeywI' pong.  (possessor preceding posessed)

Same comment, this is incorrect.  Here is a correct way:

"Lyras DevwI'" 'oH be'nalHeywI' pong'e'.

Or perhaps:

"Lyras DevwI'" pong'egh be'nalHeywI'

>tlhIngan mu'ghom vIpu'DI' muvuQtaH tlhIngan Hol, 'ach not vIlaDta'be'.
>(I prefer preposing the subordinate -DI' clause to separate the noun
>phrases tlhIngan Hol and tlhIngan mu'ghom.)

I rather prefer it that way myself, but for the record, the original
order is perfectly correct and legal.

				--Krankor, Grammarian

home help back first fref pref prev next nref lref last post