[102873] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] {Hov} DIvI' Hol mung
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (SuStel)
Fri Dec 4 12:45:27 2015
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
From: SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name>
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 12:45:26 -0500
In-Reply-To: <1F084EB7-4016-411B-A2E6-41E72EE8E2FE@gmail.com>
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@kli.org
On 12/4/2015 12:35 PM, Will Martin wrote:
> Okay, the word {maj} does work as a sentence. That=92s what it does.
>
> {vIlaDqa=92} =93I read it again.=94 Another fine sentence with {=91ej} ty=
ing it
> to another single sentence=85 except=85
>
> {pIq jIQaghbe=92 jIyepqu=92}=85
>
> Okay, {pIq} tells us that you are looking to make this a statement about
> the future. It=92s a little vague as time stamps go, but hey...
> {jIQaghbe=92} is a complete sentence. =93I don=92t err.=94 Fine.
>
> But {jIyepqu=92} is another complete sentence. =93I am very careful.=94
>
> So, what=92s the relationship between these two final complete sentences?
>
> Maybe you mean to say that your goal is to not make mistakes, and your
> statement is that you will be careful in order to not err. In that case,
> consider the verb suffix {-meH}. The purpose of your being careful is to
> not make mistakes, so {jIQaghbe'} is a good candidate for being marked
> as the purpose of {jIyepqu=92}.
On the other hand, Klingon is pretty vague about where one sentence ends =
and another begins. This is especially obvious in paq'batlh, which uses =
no punctuation at all. I'm pretty willing to take smushed-together =
sentences at face value if they mean what they're supposed to mean.
I read {pIq jIQaghbe' jIyepqu'} as "In the future I won't err; I'll be =
very careful." qunnoQ could have used punctuation to clarify this, if it =
was his meaning.
-- =
SuStel
http://www.trimboli.name/
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
Tlhingan-hol@kli.org
http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
