On 3/24/2018 8:31 PM, Daniel Dadap wrote:
Would {nIqHomvam Daghajbe'chugh Qo'noSDaq yIjolQo’!} be a grammatically and lexically sound way to express this? I feel moderately confident about the lexical part, but not the grammatical part. {Qo’noS yIjolQo'}? {Qo’noSDaq yIjol’eghQo’}? {Qo’noS Dajolbe’nISlu’}? {Qo’noSoymeyna’majDaq yIjol’eghqangQo’choHmoHbejta'neSjaj}? {‘IHqu’ yIHmeyvelth}?
I'd probably use *Qol* /beam away/ instead of *jol* /beam (aboard)./ We know that *HIjol* /beam me up!/ is used by Klingons, so it seems the person or thing that gets beamed can be the object of *jol.* I can only assume the same is true of *Qol.* The destination, therefore, would be given by a non-object locative noun. If *jol* and *Qol* can't flip subject and object like some words can (e.g., *meQ*), then we probably have to assume that the person beaming /must/ be the object. Therefore, *Qol'egh* or something like it is required. *yIjolQo'* and *yIQolQo'* /sound/ like they're right, but I'm not sure they are. We haven't seen these verbs used enough to be sure. *nIqHomvam Daghajbe'chugh Qo'noSDaq yIQol'eghQo'! nIqHomvam Daghajbe'chugh Qo'noSDaq DaQollu' 'e' yIchaw'Qo'! * Also consider using *Hutlh* instead of *ghajbe'.* ** -- SuStel http://trimboli.name