[85222] in tlhIngan-Hol
RE: wojmoHwI'mey yupma'
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Steven Boozer)
Wed Dec 24 09:48:08 2008
From: Steven Boozer <sboozer@uchicago.edu>
To: "'tlhingan-hol@kli.org'" <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2008 08:45:04 -0600
In-Reply-To: <49517705.2060307@trimboli.name>
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Voragh:
>>> yupma' yItIvjaj SoH je!
Quvar:
>> And I think that you meant to say {yupma' DA-tIvjaj} ;-)
SuStel:
> I think Quvar was addressing what Voragh wrote, which had {yI-}
> instead of {Da-}.
He was. I shouldn't have used the imperative with {-jaj}.
>Oh, and technically (TKD p. 55) the {je} should follow the verb, not the
>pronoun: {yupma' DatIvjaj je SoH}.
As it's Hanukkah, I was going for *Hag same'aH gam lekha* ("A happy holiday to you too" - trying to emphasize {SoH} not {tIv}. I.e.:
? yupma' DatIvjaj SoH je
may YOU TOO enjoy the festival (you specifically)
? yupma' DatIvjaj je SoH
may you ALSO ENJOY the festival (as well as celebrate it)
But looking at canon, I can find no example of {je} following a pronoun. The closest example I could find supports SuStel:
notlh veS... 'a tugh manotlhchoH je maH
War is obsolete... as we are in danger of becoming. ST6
I may have been thinking of:
Hevetlh wIghoSchugh veH tIn wI'el maH'e'
that course will take us into the [Great] Barrier as well. ST5
which implies:
yupma' DatIvjaj SoH'e'
or even just:
yupma' DatIvjaj SoH
since using the redundant pronoun adds emphasis all by itself.
--
Voragh
Canon Master of the Klingons
