[tlhIngan Hol] We're here to help you

[De'vID]

On Wed, 22 May 2019 at 15:14, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hugh:
> > Dughelbe'law'pu' DIoraH poH Daper
> > neHmo', 'a loQ taQmo' mu' «ngugh» Dalo'pu'DI'.
>
> I'm afraid, I can't agree with your analysis.
> [...]
> So, unless, 'oqranD has stated, that either {ngugh} or {ghIq}, should
> mandatorily, be preceded by a timestamp, or by a situation with
> regards to which they're to be understood, I can't agree, let alone
> alter, the way I'm be using them.
>

lugh Hugh.

http://klingonska.org/canon/1999-11-05-news.txt
--- begin quote ---
The adverbial is (ngugh}. It is used mainly to emphasize that a particular
event occurred at the same time as something else, though {ngugh} doesn't
indicate what that time is. Something else in the discussion makes that
clear. {ngugh} does not mean "at some (vague) time in the past" or "at some
(unknown) time in the future."

For example:

(1) vagh SanID ben buDbe' wamwI'pu'. ngugh Ho'Du'chaj lo' chaH, 'ach DaH
tajmey lo'.
[...]

(2) DungluQ tIHIv. ngugh Qongbe' chaH.
[...]

Note that in each case {ngugh} "then" refers to a time specified earlier in
the discussion (here, "5,000 years ago" and "noon").
[...]

Since {ngugh} points to or refers back to a previously established time
reference, if that time reference is not clear (or is missing), an
utterance containing {ngugh} would not make much sense. If someone asks
"When?" after hearing a sentence containing {ngugh}, unless the question
resulted from inattentiveness, {ngugh} was probably used inappropriately.
--- end quote ---

-- 
De'vID
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20190522/ed807f7e/attachment.htm>