[tlhIngan Hol] jeS

[SuStel]

On 10/20/2016 11:27 AM, De'vID wrote:
> On 20 October 2016 at 17:12, SuStel <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*)?

-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20161020/8c88dd60/attachment-0017.htm>