[87102] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: Question about Klingon books (e.g., Gilgamesh et al.)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Christopher Doty)
Tue Nov 24 23:47:44 2009
In-Reply-To: <2009E939BE284AA28631D90F52388A36@juH.Seruqtuq.net>
From: Christopher Doty <suomichris@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 20:46:07 -0800
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
> N-wI' is not always a person. It can be a thing.
I know, but N-wI' does mean "the thing/person doing the seeing" and
not "the thing which is seen." One is a noun about the subject, and
one is a noun about the object. That is what I am getting at, not
anything about people or things.
>> Ought it not be <leghbe'lu'ghach> or <leghbe'lu'bogh wanI'>?
>> Or is the passive/inverse meaning of -lu' take to its extreme here?
>
> <leghbe'lu'ghach> is a noun referring to the action of not-being-seen.
Right, the thing which is not seen: the unseen. Is there some shade
of meaning I'm missing here?
> <leghbe'lu'bogh wanI'> refers to an event, an occurance.
>
> Seeing this I do ask myself about putting -wI' on a -lu'. Can we do this?
> I know... It is really really old tlhIngan Hol; no' Hol.
So it's fair to say that it is a bit odd, if understandable, and I'm
not totally off-base in wondering about it?
Chris
