[tlhIngan Hol] Is this acceptable ?

[SuStel]

On 11/29/2016 6:37 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
> demons appear, the scared human asks "what are you ?" and the demons
> reply "demons for some, angels for others".
>
> Suppose I write the above in klingon:
>
> nargh qa'pu' Hurgh, 'ej ghel Human'e' lughIjbogh: nuq tlhIH.
> jang qa'pu' Hurgh:
> 'opvaD qa'pu' Hurgh, latlhpu'vaD angels

If you're calling demons *qa' Hurgh,* why aren't angels *qa' wov*?


> 1. at the {ghel Human'e' lughIjbogh} I think the {-'e'} isn't
> necessary. Am I correct ?

Yes, it is not required or, in this case, even helpful. We do not 
believe that an elided noun or pronoun can be the head noun of a 
relative clause. (Exception: a sound file on the /Star Trek: Klingon/ 
game has Okrand saying *Dajatlhbogh vIyajbe',* which seems to do exactly 
this. The sound file was not used in the language lab, so we don't know 
if it's meant to be a complete sentence.)


> 2. at the {'opvaD qa'pu' Hurgh} is the {'opvaD} on its own acceptable,
> or is it absolutely necessary to write something like {'op HumanvaD}

Acceptable. I don't see any reason why "some what?" wouldn't be obvious.


> 3. and most important: since at the above story the context is clear,
> is it correct for the demons' reply to be just {'op HumanvaD qa'pu'
> Hurgh} "demons for some", or is it necessary to write {'op HumanvaD
> qa'pu' Hurgh maH} ?

In a formal grammatical sentence, you need a verb. If I understood you 
to be using grammatical shortcuts, I'd be lenient.

> 4. If I remember correctly, some time ago we had said that
> {'oppu}/{'opmey} is wrong, right ?

I don't know if they're actually wrong, but they don't make a lot of 
sense to me.

-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20161129/6682fd88/attachment-0016.htm>