On 8/29/2017 10:15 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
SuStel:
So what I said is true... when you're dealing with verbs that don't take objects. If the verb does allow an object, then the "doers" of the verb, whether the subject or object, can do the verb to each other. Thank you for explaining this; as soon as I read the {Qo'noS tuqmey muvchuqmoH qeylIS} I was about to ask about it.
However, reading the canon sentences, I noted something else which seems a little strange:
muptaHvIS tay''eghmoH QeHDaj Hoch All his rage focused in one blow (PB)
If I was to translate the original klingon sentence, then I would write "while he was striking, all of his anger made itself together". But since we have the {tay'}, then shouldn't there be two subjects (at least) which would be/made together ?
Let's remove the extraneous material. *tay' QeH*/the anger is together./ This is apparently a valid meaning of *tay';* it doesn't require multiple subjects that are together. You can think of it as anger consisting of multiple parts, which have been gathered into one. Note that I would never understand *tay' QeH* standing all on its own; it's a metaphor that only makes sense in context. Don't take this example to mean that Klingons consider anger to consist of multiple parts. This is only a metaphor in a poem. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name