[tlhIngan Hol] HopHa'

mayqel qunenoS mihkoun at gmail.com
Tue Nov 29 08:04:17 PST 2016

maj. time for the next question:

if instead of the:
{Daq HopHa’Daq qa’chaj nejlI’ qotar Qempa’QeH je}
we had the:
{Daq Hopbe’Daq qa’chaj nejlI’ qotar Qempa’QeH je}

would there be any difference in meaning ? to me the {Daq Hopbe’}
sounds like "a not far location", while the {Daq HopHa'} sounds like
"a misfar location" (whatever the ghe''or this may mean..)

qunnoH jan puqloD

On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 5:15 PM, SuStel <sustel at trimboli.name> wrote:
> On 11/29/2016 10:00 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
> SuStel:
> Maybe for the same reason the English didn't use nearby?
> hmm.. is there a rule that in be-verbs used as adjectives someone can
> place the {-Ha'}, or is this sentence from paq'batlh an exception ?
> and remind me of something.. in verbs used as adjectives, we can have
> the {-qu'}, right ? but can we have the {-be'} ?  In the above
> sentence could there be {Daq Hopbe’Daq qa’chaj nejlI’ qotar Qempa’QeH
> je} ?
> We've seen three of the four rovers used as suffixes on adjectival verbs.
> -qu' appears in The Klingon Dictionary (section 4.4) and is explicitly
> allowed. -be' first appears in Conversational Klingon in the section on
> counting as wa'maH yIHmey lI'be'. -Ha' first appears in Klingon for the
> Galactic Traveler as Duj ngaDHa' in the section on slang. Each type has been
> used more than once.
> Clearly, -qu', -be', and -Ha' are all allowed on adjectival verbs. I don't
> think we've ever seen any other suffixes on such verbs.
> --
> SuStel
> http://trimboli.name
> _______________________________________________
> tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
> tlhIngan-Hol at lists.kli.org
> http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org

More information about the tlhIngan-Hol mailing list