[tlhIngan Hol] Ha'DIbaHvam Doj bongu'laH'a'?

[Steven Boozer]

Hmm… the inverse happened when these famous lines were translated
From the original Klingon of SeQpIr (cf. TKW p.131):

cheqotlhchugh maHaghbe''a'?
cheDuQchugh mareghbe''a'?
cheQIHchugh manoDbe''a'?

Tickle us, do we not laugh?
Prick us, do we not bleed?
Wrong us, shall we not seek revenge?

-- Voragh


On Behalf Of Alan Anderson
Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2016 1:13 PM

On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 12:00 PM, Ed Bailey <bellerophon.modeler at gmail.com<mailto:bellerophon.modeler at gmail.com>> wrote:
bong QIn wa'DIch wa' mu' vIlIj. jIjatlhniS:
{yavDaq QemjIq chenmoH neH 'e' DapIH, bImuj. Sor Hap 'echlet Sub veghlaH.}

cha'logh «DapIH» DaghItlhta'. «-chugh» 'ut Hutlhlaw'.

Leaving off {-chugh} seems to be a common error among advanced speakers of Klingon. I wonder if there's a linguistic theory that explains this phenomenon.

-- ghunchu'wI'
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20161117/310362c8/attachment-0017.htm>