[131] in tlhIngan-Hol
more on -lu'/-laH
dcctdw@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (dcctdw@ATHENA.MIT.EDU)
Sun Feb 16 19:16:50 1992
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@village.boston.ma.us
Reply-To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@village.boston.ma.us>
From: krankor@IMA.ISC.COM (Captain Krankor)
To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@village.boston.ma.us>
Date: Sat, 25 Jan 92 02:21:38 -0500
Eddie Maise suggests that the use of neH as meaning one thing rather
than other things is inccorect. He is in fact in error in this statement.
It is true that neH is used for trivializing action *when it is applied
to a verb*. However, page 57, at the top: "Unlike other adverbials,
neH can follow a noun. In such cases, it means *only, alone*.".
The examples that follow show yaS neH, *only the officer, the officer
alone*. Clearly that's the sense meant by wa' neH that was given.
There was a suggesting for doing "there can be only one" with taH. This
seems a reasonable approach to me. If you want a general way out of
the lu'/laH problem, you can always go to a construction like this:
For "(Something) You can be eaten": DaSoplu' net ta'laH
But again, there isn't necessarily one right way to do it, you have to
work the sentence around til you get something that works. That may vary
sentence by sentence.
--ftGD,
Krankor
