[85654] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: nuq bach?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (qa'vaj)
Sun May 31 00:41:50 2009
In-Reply-To: <BAY127-W9836385CBE2C1142FBC23AA500@phx.gbl>
Date: Sat, 30 May 2009 23:39:02 -0500
From: "qa'vaj" <darqang99@gmail.com>
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 6:38 AM, Rohan F <qeslagh@hotmail.com> wrote:
> ghItlhpu' qa'vaj, jatlh:
> >The entity that the shooter is intending to hit when he shoots seems like
> a
> >natural {-vaD} to me. But, I don't have any problem erasing that notion
> >once I reach the point of being convinced (which is not yet).
>
> There's an example in "The Undiscovered Country" that might convince you:
>
> Qo'noS wa'Daq baHta'
> "They fired [intentionally] upon Kronos One." (ST:VI)
>
[...]
>
>
> ...ray' HopDaq bachlu'meH chuqna' ghurmoH naQvam
> "This [stock] serves to ... increase the effective range for distance
> targeting." (S14)
>
>
maj. These combined with the ST5 line from Voragh make a pretty conclusive
case for {-Daq}.
But it wasn't that {-Daq] is what Klingons use with {bach} that I was
wanting to be convinced of.
(from SuStel's comment mainly) I'm left with the impression that if we had
no canon for {bach}, and didn't know that Klingons use {-Daq}, {-vaD}
wouldn't work anyway for some reason intrinsic in the definition of {-vaD}.
If that's the case, then there is something wrong with my understanding of
{-vaD}.
If on the other hand it's simply a matter that, yes {-vaD} might be expected
to work grammatically, but Klingons actually use {-Daq}; then no problem.
--
qa'vaj
qo'lIj DachenmoHtaH
