[tlhIngan Hol] paq'batlh mu'tlhegh

[mayqel qunenoS]

and perhaps this explanation is compatible with the tkd sentence
{jIHtaHbogh naDev vISovbe'}.

"I don't know the here (=I don't know what/where is this "here") which I am
being (=occupying)".

qunnoH jan puqloD
ghoghwIj HablI'vo' vIngeHta'

On 19 Dec 2016 12:53 pm, "mayqel qunenoS" <mihkoun at gmail.com> wrote:

> this just occured to me..
>
> paq'batlh doesn't have punctuation, right ? so, what if at the original
> sentence the punctuation goes:
>
> {DaH, naDev, jIHtaHbogh meq Saja'}
>
> if that would be the case, I could accept this as "now, here, I will tell
> you my reason of being".
>
> granted, perhaps this produces a different meaning than the given one, but
> its the only solution I can think of.
>
> damn, this sentence drives me crazy !
>
> qunnoH jan puqloD
> ghoghwIj HablI'vo' vIngeHta'
>
> On 19 Dec 2016 11:36 am, "mayqel qunenoS" <mihkoun at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> De'vID:
>> > {naDev ghaHtaH} means "he/she is here".
>>
>> Yes, I can understand this; but if at the above sentence we had the
>> {-bogh} ({naDev ghaHtaHbogh}), then what would that mean ?
>>
>> My difficulty in understanding the original paq'batlh sentence,
>> had/has to do with accepting the {naDev jIHtaHbogh} as a noun.
>>
>> If that sentence went: {DaH naDev jIHtaH meq Saja'}, then I could read
>> it as "now, the reason of my being here, I will tell you". But the
>> addition of {-bogh} severely messes me up. It is its presence that I
>> can't explain.
>>
>> qunnoH jan puqloD
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 12:51 AM, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On Dec 17, 2016 09:24, "mayqel qunenoS" <mihkoun at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > De'vID:
>> >
>> >> {naDev jIHtaHbogh} is a noun.
>> >
>> > I can't understand how this could be correct as a {-bogh}ed noun.
>> >
>> > I know we can say {paq qanobta'bogh} for "the book which I gave you".
>> but
>> > here the {paq} is the object of {nob}.
>> >
>> > On the {naDev jIHtaHbogh} is the {naDev} an object ? and if yes, the
>> object
>> > of what verb ? the object of {jIH} ? I can understand the {jIH} taking
>> an
>> > object in the context of {SuvwI' jIH}. but then, the {naDev jIHtaH}
>> would
>> > mean "I am here" not in the sense "I am present here", but in the sense
>> "I
>> > am the here".
>> >
>> > The SkyBox {Qo'noS} card has the following sentence:
>> > {pa’ ’oH­taH vaS­’a’ ’e’.}
>> > "This is where the Klingon Great Hall is located"
>> >
>> > That no more means "the Great Hall is 'the there'" than {naDev jIHtaH}
>> means
>> > "I am 'the here'."
>> >
>> > The suffix {-taH} indicates an ongoing activity, and "being at a
>> location"
>> > is apparently considered a type of ongoing activity.
>> >
>> > See also KGT p.25:
>> > {tera'ngan ghaH qama''e'} "The prisoner is a Terran"
>> > {bIghHa'Daq ghaHtaH qama''e'} "The prisoner is in the prison"
>> >
>> > Even though that sentence has a {-Daq}ed noun, the structure is
>> essentially
>> > the same. {bIghHa'Daq ghaHtaH} means "he/she is in prison", and {naDev
>> > ghaHtaH} means "he/she is here".
>> >
>> > --
>> > De'vID
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
>> > tlhIngan-Hol at lists.kli.org
>> > http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
>> >
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20161219/701736e7/attachment.htm>