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

[mayqel qunenoS]

QaQ {-chugh} bopbogh De''e', 'ach Ha'DIbaH wIbuS. 'e' 'ut !

qunnoH
ghoghwIj HablI'vo' vIngeHta'

On 17 Nov 2016 9:43 pm, "Steven Boozer" <sboozer at uchicago.edu> wrote:

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>
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'

_______________________________________________
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/20161117/121ccc53/attachment-0018.htm>