[108489] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [tlhIngan Hol] paq'batlh mu'tlhegh
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (De'vID)
Mon Dec 19 07:30:02 2016
X-Original-To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org
In-Reply-To: <CAP7F2cKBs+86EW9Yd7k6Jrq6SB6X8C7TeBsWmKxFfogWJAGfWw@mail.gmail.com>
From: "De'vID" <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2016 13:29:58 +0100
To: tlhIngan-Hol <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
Reply-To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org
--===============8173337924828294461==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11492ffef929c30544021364
--001a11492ffef929c30544021364
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
On Dec 19, 2016 10:36, "mayqel qunenoS" <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
De'vID:
> {naDev ghaHtaH} means "he/she is here".
Yes, I can understand this; but if at the above sentence we had the
{-bogh} ({naDev ghaHtaHbogh}), then what would that mean ?
"here where he/she is"
What's difficult about this? {-bogh} turns a sentence into a relative
clause.
{SuvwI' HoHpu'} "he killed the warrior"
{SuvwI' HoHpu'bogh} "the warrior whom he killed"
{naDev ghaHtaH} "he is here"
{naDev ghaHtaHbogh} "here where he is"
What's the difficulty? Is it that you don't accept that the location is the
object of the pronoun/verb?
Consider {pa' 'oHtaH vaS'a''e'}. What role does {pa'} play relative to
{'oHtaH}?
My difficulty in understanding the original paq'batlh sentence,
had/has to do with accepting the {naDev jIHtaHbogh} as a noun.
{[noun] [verb][suffix]bogh} is a noun. What else could it be? This is just
a standard relative clause.
If that sentence went: {DaH naDev jIHtaH meq Saja'}, then I could read
it as "now, the reason of my being here, I will tell you". But the
addition of {-bogh} severely messes me up. It is its presence that I
can't explain.
What you wrote is ungrammatical as a single sentence. The sentence from the
paq'batlh is perfectly formed according to known Klingon grammar and has a
clear meaning.
--
De'vID
--001a11492ffef929c30544021364
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"auto"><div data-smartmail=3D"gmail_signature" dir=3D"auto"><br>=
</div><div class=3D"gmail_extra" dir=3D"auto"><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On=
Dec 19, 2016 10:36, "mayqel qunenoS" <<a href=3D"mailto:mihko=
un@gmail.com">mihkoun@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br type=3D"attribution"><blo=
ckquote class=3D"quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc sol=
id;padding-left:1ex">De'vID:<br>
<div class=3D"quoted-text">> {naDev ghaHtaH} means "he/she is here&=
quot;.<br>
<br>
</div>Yes, I can understand this; but if at the above sentence we had the<b=
r>
{-bogh} ({naDev ghaHtaHbogh}), then what would that mean ?<br></blockquote>=
</div></div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">"here where =
he/she is"</div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">What'=
;s difficult about this? {-bogh} turns a sentence into a relative clause.</=
div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">{SuvwI' HoHpu'} &=
quot;he killed the warrior"</div><div dir=3D"auto">{SuvwI' HoHpu&#=
39;bogh} "the warrior whom he killed"</div><div dir=3D"auto"><br>=
</div><div dir=3D"auto">{naDev ghaHtaH} "he is here"</div><div di=
r=3D"auto">{naDev ghaHtaHbogh} "here where he is"</div><div dir=
=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">What's the difficulty? Is it that=
you don't accept that the location is the object of the pronoun/verb?<=
/div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">Consider {pa' 'o=
HtaH vaS'a''e'}. What role does {pa'} play relative to =
{'oHtaH}?</div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div>=
<div class=3D"gmail_extra" dir=3D"auto"><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><blockqu=
ote class=3D"quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;p=
adding-left:1ex">My difficulty in understanding the original paq'batlh =
sentence,<br>
had/has to do with accepting the {naDev jIHtaHbogh} as a noun.<br></blockqu=
ote></div></div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">{[noun] [verb=
][suffix]bogh} is a noun. What else could it be?=C2=A0<span style=3D"font-f=
amily:sans-serif">This is just a standard relative clause.=C2=A0</span></di=
v><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra" dir=3D"auto"><div =
class=3D"gmail_quote"><blockquote class=3D"quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8e=
x;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
If that sentence went: {DaH naDev jIHtaH meq Saja'}, then I could read<=
br>
it as "now, the reason of my being here, I will tell you". But th=
e<br>
addition of {-bogh} severely messes me up. It is its presence that I<br>
can't explain.<br></blockquote></div></div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div>=
<div dir=3D"auto">What you wrote is ungrammatical as a single sentence. The=
sentence from the paq'batlh is perfectly formed according to known Kli=
ngon grammar and has a clear meaning.</div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div=
dir=3D"auto">--=C2=A0</div><div dir=3D"auto">De'vID</div><div class=3D=
"gmail_extra" dir=3D"auto"><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><blockquote class=3D"=
quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1=
ex"></blockquote></div></div></div>
--001a11492ffef929c30544021364--
--===============8173337924828294461==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
_______________________________________________
tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org
http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
--===============8173337924828294461==--
