[tlhIngan Hol] How "pure" is Ca'NoN ?

[Lieven L. Litaer]

Am 03.04.2019 um 14:25 schrieb Will Martin:
> Awwwwriiiiiight!

hehee

> So, I can say {tlhIngan Hol’e’ be’nalwI’ vIghojmoH} because, even though
> it doesn’t follow the formula given us ({be’nalwI’vaD tlhIngan Hol
> vIghojmoH}), it obviously makes sense to anyone who speaks Klingon, right?

I'm not saying it's correct, but (unless there's a known fact) I'm not
saying it's wrong either.

> The two objects of {ghojmoH} are the beneficiary and the topic.

That -moH-problem keeps coming back all the time.

> In fact, it should be okay to say {tlhIngan Hol’e’ be’nalwI’vaD
> jIghojmoH.}

That is an interesting theory.

> [Let the fireworks begin.]

hahaha.

--
Lieven L. Litaer
aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany"
http://www.klingonisch.de
http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/Type4VerbSuffixes