[108686] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [tlhIngan Hol] to qaStaHvIS or not to qaStaHvIS
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (De'vID)
Thu Dec 29 10:51:03 2016
X-Original-To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org
In-Reply-To: <CAP7F2cJ-GYxawvmGNmheR4w836saxPU8bER_B+nvLaMM_Dv2dg@mail.gmail.com>
From: "De'vID" <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2016 16:51:00 +0100
To: tlhIngan-Hol <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
Reply-To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org
On 29 December 2016 at 09:15, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
> ghunchu'wI:
>> SuStel has already given exactly the reasonable arguments I would use. I don't know how to improve on them.
>
> maj. there you go ! I am an idiot, who is unable to understand the obvious.
>
> however, this is truly strange; through the 14 months I have been on
> this list, we have discussed countless things; and always we came to a
> conclusion.
>
> Unfortunately, at this thread, on this occasion, what has been said so
> far fails to explain why the {Soch DIS vorgh jIQuch} is ungrammatical.
The explanation seems fairly clear to me. What grammatical role does
{Soch DIS vorgh} play in that sentence? It's either missing a verb
({qaStaHvIS}) that relates it to the rest of the sentence, or it's
missing a noun which would turn it into a time stamp ({poH}).
> The only reasonable explanation is, if someone wrote "because maltz
> said so". Instead, there is no "maltz said so", but a countless list
> of arguments which leads to nowhere.
No, I don't think a ruling from Maltz is necessary here. Nothing in
the known grammar of Klingon allows you to stick a period of time like
{Soch DIS vorgh} in front of a sentence like you want.
--
De'vID
_______________________________________________
tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org
http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
