On 7/7/2017 10:52 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
The verb {chep} means "to be prosperous, to prosper", and so we have the {yIchep} for "prosper !" (imperative).
But if the only definition given to {chep} was "to be prosperous", then we couldn't have the {yIchep} and so we would have {yIchep'eghmoH}, right ?
Yes, *yIchep* violates KGT's rule that imperative verbs expressing states or qualities just include *-'egh* and *-moH.* The rule has been violated elsewhere too, mostly but not always before KGT was published.
..and with regards to the {Dab} on the paq'batlh example.
A little bird told me, that according to the KLI mailing list 1999.07.19, "In Klingon, when one lives at a place, he or she is thought of as occupying or inhabiting it. That is, he or she is not seen as doing something at a location, but rather as doing something to it"
So in this context, the {'op ben pa' Dab ngan} should be written instead {'op ben pa' luDab ngan} for "some years ago inhabitants resided the there".
The only interpretation of the canon sentence which I could find, in-keeping with the above list's comment, is "some years ago an inhabitant resided the there". But I don't think this is the intended meaning; if only one resides somewhere, then this somewhere hardly qualifies as being alive and prosperous.
I can think of three possibilities: 1. It was supposed to be *luDab,* and the *lu-* was erroneously dropped. 2. The subject is singular: /some years ago an inhabitant inhabited there./ This is not an unreasonable way to render literally the figurative /[the land] was alive,/ though I would have expected plural inhabitants. 3. It is using *pa'* as a non-subject, non-object noun placed before the OVS structure, and *Dab* here has no object: /some years ago, thereabouts, inhabitants inhabited (in general)./ This is not actually ungrammatical, just a bit odd. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name