[83891] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: Using the verb DuH (was Art of War Chp. 1 (section 3/3))
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (qa'vaj)
Wed Jan 9 00:02:43 2008
Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2008 22:58:52 -0600
From: qa'vaj <darqang99@gmail.com>
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20080108104037.029382e0@imap.uchicago.edu>
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
On Jan 8, 2008 11:01 AM, Steven Boozer <sboozer@uchicago.edu> wrote:
> {DuH} "be possible" (v.) has been used just once:
>
> yIntaHvIS qIrq DuHbe' roj
> There will be no peace as long as Kirk lives. (ST5 notes)
>
> The synonym {qIt} "be possible" has never been used.
>
Thanks. That also tells me that it must not have been discussed in HolQeD.
I found the forum thread that I was thinking of, but it focuses mostly on
DuH as a noun. It starts here, with the subject "probability":
http://www.kli.org/tlhIngan-Hol/2004/April/thread.html
ja' jIH:
>Using {-meH} is a clever way to go, but it doesn't look like it works as a
>general solution. "It's not possible to open that door." {lojmItvetlh
>poSmoHlu'meH DuHbe' ???}.
ja' Voragh:
>
> Here you would use {-laH} (ability). Unfortunately, it cannot be used
> with
> {-lu'} (indefinite subject):
It's curious that Klingon is a verb/action-oriented language, and the
concept of "be possible" seems to be more applicable to actions than
nouns/objects, yet we really don't know - I guess - how to cleanly use
DuH/qIt to describe actions (it just seems like one of those things that we
should have a way to do). On the other hand, (per above) do we not need it
because {-laH} covers the concept well enough? That's an interesting
thought. I don't have an opinion right now, but I'll think about it.
--
qa'vaj
qo'lIj DachenmoHtaH
