[tlhIngan Hol] doubly {-meH}ed nouns

Jeffrey Clark jmclark85 at gmail.com
Wed May 15 15:38:27 PDT 2019


chargwI’

Doch qaghel vIneH. yIqel: Dochmeyvam wIghelDI’, chay’ meqvam vItu’? chaq tlhIngan Hol wIjatlhtaH, ‘ej qaSmo’ ghu’van wIghelbogh; ‘a qarchugh maSovbe’ vaj maghel.

Dochmeyvam wIghelmo’ ghu’ wIghomba’ qar’a’? vaj vogh tlhIngan Hol wIjatlhtaH qar’a’?  tlhIngan Hol wIqeqbe’ ‘e’ Daqapqa’taH; ‘a bIlughbe’ba’. tlhIngan Hol wIlo’taHba’.

vabDot: ghomvamvaD QIn rut wIqonmeH tlhIngan Hol wIlo’ mayqel jIH je. qen yIH ‘up bop ‘e’ vIghItlh, ‘ej tlhIngan Hol vIlo’. ‘a jupwI’vaD jIjatlh vIneHDI’ latlh Daqmay wIlo’. {Twitter}Daq tlhIngan Hol neH vIlo’ — pa tlhIngan Hol neH lo’bogh ghom’e’ tu’lu’. {Facebook}Daq tlhIngan Hol jatlhwI’ tu’lu’, ‘ej law’ chu’wI’. [Discord}Daq jatlhwI’ law’ tu’lu’ je, ‘a pIj pa vIghoS tlhIngan Hol vIjatlh vIneHchugh.

naDev tlhIngan Hol vIlo’nIS, ‘a Dochmey bop ‘e’ vIjatlh: Daj ‘e’ DaHar, ‘e’ vIHon. vaj jupwI’vaD jatlhmeH latlh Qum vIlo’. naDev tlhIngan Hol Dajtlh DaneHchugh, yIbepQo’ ‘ej marIchmeH Doch Daj Datu’. 

—jevreH

Sent from my iPad

> On May 15, 2019, at 17:34, Will Martin <willmartin2 at mac.com> wrote:
> 
> Hol ghojmeH, Holvam lo’lu’nIS. qeqnISlu’. reH Holvam Dellu'taH, latlh Hol lo’taHvIS, ‘e’ Dachup’a’?
> 
> Hol ghojDI’ ghojwI’, Hol lo’nIS ghojwI’vetlh. DubmeH HolvetlhDaq luSnIS ghojwI’vetlh.
> 
> not tlhIngan Hol yIlo’ jatlhlaw' ghoHwI’pu’. yIghoH neH. ghojmeH, pup mIwvam.
> 
> wejpuH.
> 
> charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan
> 
> rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> On May 15, 2019, at 5:08 PM, Jeffrey Clark <jmclark85 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> charghwI’
>> 
>> choSovbe’. pIj jIghel vIneH, ‘a tlhIngan Hol jatlhbe’ ‘e’ ‘oSbe’.
>> 
>> jIQummeH not tlhIngan Hol vIlo’ ‘e’ DaSovbe’.  tlhIngan Hol vIlo’laHbe’ ‘e’ DaSovbe’ je.  Dochmeyvam bop ‘e’ yIjatlhQo’.
>> 
>> DuSaQ’a’ ghojmoHwI’ jIH. DuSaQ’a’Daq jIghojmoHpu’. {ghojmoH QeD} vIHaDpu’. ghojtaHghach DaDelDI’: bIlughbe’. not ghojwI’vaD {Qo’ Qo’ Qo’} jatlh ghojmoHwI’ QaQ. yIDel, yIDelqa’, yIchuH, yIchuHqa’. not {Qo’} jatlhlu’. ghojwI’vaD {Qo’} jatlhlu’DI’: pagh ghojmoH, pagh Qej je.
>> 
>> pIj qatlh bup tlhIngan jatlhwI’ chu’? chaq botapmo’ — {Qo’ Qo’ Qo’, DIvI’ Hol ngoq ‘oH} — Hegh qa’chaj.
>> 
>> —jevreH
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Sent from my iPad
>> 
>>> On May 15, 2019, at 16:26, Will Martin <willmartin2 at mac.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Is that really the best you can do?
>>> 
>>> Explore the possibility of nesting purpose clauses, which may not be valid, instead of exploring several other ways to express the same idea without doing anything at all that might be invalid?
>>> 
>>> In other words, don’t learn how to express meaningful sentences in Klingon. Focus all your attention on purpose clauses and all the possible (but perhaps invalid) things that you can do with them.
>>> 
>>> That’s really going to help develop your ability to speak Klingon.
>>> 
>>> Keep at it. It’s been working so well up to this point as a method for learning the language. See all the Klingon text that people write on this list? Isn’t that proof that this is the right way to learn the language?
>>> 
>>> charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan
>>> 
>>> rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On May 15, 2019, at 4:19 PM, SuStel <sustel at trimboli.name> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> On 5/15/2019 3:52 PM, Will Martin wrote:
>>>>> And how does that teach them how to say actual expressions in Klingon?
>>>> 
>>>> They're asking whether these things can BE actual expressions in Klingon. If you don't think so, explain why not. Without accusing them of trying to encode English into Klingon.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> How many years will it be before they actually make common use of the thing they passionately argued about for a dozen messages in a thread?
>>>>> 
>>>>> I honestly think they’d be much better served if they tried to say a common expression several different ways. Then they’d be learning how to USE the language instead of just how to argue about it.
>>>> 
>>>> I don't think it's for you to say how they enjoy the language. Saying "This doesn't seem to be against the rules; does it work?" is not an unproductive activity. I'd honestly never considered constructing nested purpose clauses before, but I can find no reasonable prohibition against it.
>>>> 
>>>> -- 
>>>> SuStel
>>>> http://trimboli.name
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
>>>> tlhIngan-Hol at lists.kli.org
>>>> http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
>>> tlhIngan-Hol at lists.kli.org
>>> http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
>> _______________________________________________
>> tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
>> tlhIngan-Hol at lists.kli.org
>> http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20190515/fac76a74/attachment.html>


More information about the tlhIngan-Hol mailing list