daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Qov)
Tue Jan 24 12:19:19 2012
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 09:15:43 -0800
To: "tlhingan-hol@kli.org" <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
From: Qov <robyn@flyingstart.ca>
In-Reply-To: <B750508B-45C3-489F-83DC-353E91AF42E0@alcaco.net>
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@stodi.digitalkingdom.org
I was actually aware of most of the canon. I suppose I had never
really internalized that while {jatlh} gets used both ways, ja' only
has the listener as object.
I have some habits that date from when it was just me, and blue copy
of TKD with an embossed cover, and unanswered please to usenet in
search of anyone else who believed this little book was more than a
joke. I should purge the old, incorrect habits, but in a way I'm
proud of them, like a regional accent.
I am pleased any time an error or a discussion coming from the story
leads to canon and opinions. I miss the days when the list teemed
with beginners, so all the basics and stumbling blocks were being
explained over and over again and we could never forget them.
But I don't miss having no word for "hold" or "table" or "picture."
- Qov
At 08:56 24/01/2012, you wrote:
>On Jan 24, 2012, at 10:03 AM, Lieven Litaer <lieven.litaer@web.de> wrote:
>
> > Am 24.01.2012 15:40, schrieb David Trimboli:
> >> On 1/24/2012 9:37 AM, Lieven Litaer wrote:
> >>>> nuja' tlhIngan wIch ja'wI'pu'
> >>>> According to Klingon legend... S8
> >
> > ghItlh SuStel:
> >> That's not a verbal phrase; it's a noun-noun construction.
> >
> > Yes, that's correct, {wIch} + {ja'wI'}
> > But doesn't this {ja'wI'} tell the {wIch} ?
>
>In this example, the {ja'wI} tells {maH}. The first word tells us so.
>
> > {qagh Sop qagh SopwI'} ..
> > {wIch ja' wIch ja'wI'} ??
>
>{tuj muv tuj muvwI'} ??
>
>[N V-wI'] isn't the sentence [N V] with a {-wI'} tacked on. I used
>to think so, but I've found too little supporting evidence and been
>shown too much contrary evidence.
>
> > Or is the thing being told the indirect object?
> >
> > {lut qaja'}
> > "I tell you a story"
>
>That sort of prefix abuse generally has the prefix pointing to the
>"indirect object". Your hypothetical example still has {lut} as the
>object, something we don't seem to have canon support for.
>
>-- ghunchu'wI'
>
>_______________________________________________
>Tlhingan-hol mailing list
>Tlhingan-hol@stodi.digitalkingdom.org
>http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
Tlhingan-hol@stodi.digitalkingdom.org
http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
