[tlhIngan Hol] <<poSayDon>> vImughlI'

Brian Cote wearetheinformation00 at gmail.com
Tue Jan 17 14:22:12 PST 2017


On Monday, January 16, 2017, terrence.donnelly <
terrence.donnelly at sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> <nej> already means "look for" and the "for" of <-vaD> doesn't fit looking
> for something , since it implies a benefactor, "for the sake of", and not
> the target of <nej>.
> ter'eS
> Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
> -------- Original message --------
> From: Brian Cote <wearetheinformation00 at gmail.com
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','wearetheinformation00 at gmail.com');>>
> Date: 1/16/17 12:34 PM (GMT-06:00)
> To: tlhingan-hol at kli.org
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','tlhingan-hol at kli.org');>
> Subject: Re: [tlhIngan Hol] <<poSayDon>> vImughlI'
> To answer the remainder of your original question, I pulled {paqvaD
> qanejmoH} off of the "klingon_grammar" page on the Wikipedia. However there
> was no citation given for where the example of this particular construction
> came from.
> QImSIr
> On Sunday, January 15, 2017, SuStel <sustel at trimboli.name
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','sustel at trimboli.name');>> wrote:
>> On 1/15/2017 9:34 PM, Brian Cote wrote:
>> ej vaj ghaH QeHqu'moH qechna'vam 'ej bI'reS Qu'DajvaD
>> ghaH parqu'moH.
>> Disregarding your suggestions for recasting these sentences
>> for the moment.
>> {bI'reS} - I was intending to use it as a time stamp, as in
>>  the {paq'batlh}, however, I'm thinking {wa'DIch} might have
>> been more appropriate here.
>> *wa'DIch* would have been better. A *bI'reS* is the beginning of some
>> artistic performance, not a job.
>> {Qu'DajvaD ghaH parqu'moH} - I'll explain my thinking here.
>>  I was intending to write /(this idea specifically) caused him to
>> really dislike his duty/. I based this on the example of
>>  {paqvaD qanejmoH}, but as I'm currently writing this,
>>  I'm realizing that this probably falls under the category of
>> the "prefix trick", correct? I was thinking that {ghaH} would be
>>  the explicit direct object and {Qu'Daj} would be the explicit
>>  indirect object. This obviously didn't work, correct?
>> Does *paqvaD qanejmoH* appear in *paq'batlh*? I have only about
>> two-thirds of it typed in and searchable, and what I have already done
>> doesn't contain that phrase.
>> Our first example of how to do this was on a SkyBox card, where the
>> phrase was *ghaHvaD quHDaq qawmoH** it causes him to remember his
>> heritage.* Following this pattern, your desired sentence would be *ghaHvaD
>> Qu'Daj parqu'moH** it causes him to really dislike his task.*
>> --
>> SuStelhttp://trimboli.name
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20170117/65700e61/attachment-0005.htm>

More information about the tlhIngan-Hol mailing list