[87964] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: Already
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (lojmIt tI'wI' nuv)
Fri Apr 30 10:23:45 2010
From: "lojmIt tI'wI' nuv" <lojmitti7wi7nuv@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20100430153333.80066478b7s02cks@letter.sics.se>
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2010 10:21:34 -0400
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
jabwI': qa'vIn DaneH'a'?
jIH: ghobe'.
pItlh.
qatlh meqlIj DaQIjnIS? Human SoHba'.
meqlIj DaQIjnISbejchugh, vaj yIjatlh:
qa'vIn yap vItlhutlhta'. jItlhutlhqa' wej vIneH.
lojmIt tI'wI' nuv
qa'vIn vItlhutlhbe'. yuch vImaS.
On Apr 30, 2010, at 9:33 AM, kff@sics.se wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I recently tried to express that I did not want to drink coffee since
> I'd already had coffee, but found no klingon word for "already". How
> ever, there is {wej} for "not yet", so I thought that {wejHa'} might
> work. But of course, I can't put a {-Ha'} after an adverb just as if
> it had been a verb...
>
> OTOH, there are some adverbs that are similarly formed, such as
> {DoHa'} (unfortunately) and the pair {pIj} (frequently) and {pIjHa'}
> (infrequently).
>
> So would {wejHa'} (or {wejbe'}) count as an acceptable neologism? It's
> the kind of construction that might occur as slang, for instance.
>
> {wejHa' qavIn vItlhutlhpu'} "I've already had coffee"
>
> Or is it a deeper reason to the lack of the word? It is a bit
> superflous, perhaps {qavIn vitlhutlhpu'} would be more direct, and
> thus more Klingon? Or, for that matter, {qen qavIn vItlhutlhpu'} (I
> have recently had coffee) would be more precise?
>
> Regards,
>
> /buSwI'
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
>
>
>
>
