[2590] in tlhIngan-Hol
-bogh question
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU)
Mon Jan 17 17:27:08 1994
Reply-To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@klingon.East.Sun.COM>
From: shoulson@ctr.columbia.edu (Mark E. Shoulson)
To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@klingon.East.Sun.COM>
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 1994 17:21:53 -0500
In-Reply-To: Will Martin's message of Fri, 14 Jan 94 18:48:33 EST <9401142348.A
A13320@uva.pcmail.Virginia.EDU>
>From: Will Martin <whm2m@uva.pcmail.virginia.edu>
>Date: Fri, 14 Jan 94 18:48:33 EST
>I'll leave it to the grammarians to correct the grammar. I will merely
>suggest that ST3 is peppered with references to "my lord", which is not all
>that different from "my friend". Given sentences like {HIja' jawwI'}, I would
>think you could similarly address your friend with {bIHujbej jupwI'}.
Yes. marqem is quite correct that "my friend" in this sentence is a
vocative, handled in Sect 5.6: they come at the beginning or the end. It's
merely direct address of your interlocutor.
Oh, and marqem made another valid and correct point about using "-wI'"
instead of some hideous "?ghaHbogh ghaH": webtaH yuDwI': he who is
dishonest (i.e. a dishonhest-er) is continuously disgraced. Works for me.
> The use
>of pronouns for "to be" verbs is perfectly legal, but their overuse in that
>capacity is a sure fire indicator of a waaay uncool beginner squeezing
>English verbage through a cerial box Klingon decoder ring.
I'm inclined to agree.
>-- charghwI'
~mark
