[tlhIngan Hol] jeS

[mayqel qunenoS]

'o SuStel you're good ! hahaha ! pIn'a'na' SoH ! reH qaHo'qu'..
qarurlaHchugh vaj jIQuchchoHchu' !

qunnoH
ghogh HablI'wIjvo' vIngeHta'

On 20 Oct 2016 6:43 pm, "SuStel" <sustel at trimboli.name> wrote:

> On 10/20/2016 11:27 AM, De'vID wrote:
>
> On 20 October 2016 at 17:12, SuStel <sustel at trimboli.name> <sustel at trimboli.name> wrote:
>
> On 10/20/2016 10:25 AM, Steven Boozer wrote:
>
>   qaStaHvIS wanI'vam yIDachQo'
>   Don't miss this event!  (WSC)
>
> What is WSC?
>
> It said right there in Voragh's mail!
>
> P.S. WSC = Washington Shakespeare Company's "By Any Other Name: An Evening of Shakespeare in Klingon" (2010)
>
> (Probably your mail software elided it, because it was under his signature.)
>
> No, I just missed it.
>
> This appears to be another exception to the general rule: "Generally, when a
> verb describing a state of being... is used in the imperative form, the
> suffixes -’egh (reflexive suffix) and -moH (“cause”) are used as well..."
>
> While {Dach} is a "be something" verb, is it a "state of being"? It
> seems somehow different than verbs like {tuj} or {taD}.
>
>
> Is "being absent" a state of being? Seems so to me. If the line were *qaStaHvIS
> wanI'vam yIDach'eghmoHQo'* it would seem to work just as well.
>
> Where is the line between a state of being and not a state of being? Or
> perhaps the negative *-Qo'* makes the rule not operative because you're
> not commanding a state of being (the negative *yIDachQo'* versus the
> positive *yISaH'eghmoH*)?
>
> --
> SuStelhttp://trimboli.name
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20161020/2fc4b7ac/attachment-0001.htm>