[tlhIngan Hol] expressing "again we wouldn't be able"
sustel at trimboli.name
Thu Sep 26 06:29:26 PDT 2019
On 9/26/2019 9:15 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
> we eat again
> we're able to eat again
> we aren't able to eat again
> we are able not to eat again
Or /We are able to not resume eating./ Maybe someone is forcing people
to resume eating, but we can avoid being so forced.
> So far so good..
> Can someone tell me, how in the name of qeylIS our lord and master, I
> can say "again we aren't able to eat" ???
The meanings of Klingon suffixes don't necessarily have to be applied in
a particular order. You're just forced to write them in a certain order
no matter where their meanings lie.
**ma-:* we do something
*Sop:* the action is eating
*-qa':* something resumes or happens again
*-laH:* the subject is able to do something
*-be':* negates either the *-laH* or all of *Sopqa'laH.*
Let's assume the *-be'* applies only to the *-laH.* /Not able, resume,
eat./ This might mean we resume being not able to eat, or it might mean
we are not able to resume eating. As always, Captain Context is there to
Or we can assume the *-be'* applies to the whole thing. *maSopqa'laH*
means we are able to resume eating or we resume being able to eat. With
the *-be',* it means we are not able to resume eating or we do not
resume being able to eat.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the tlhIngan-Hol