since I always had trouble understanding grammar terms, I will shy away from using them ; I will say however that : a. the {yIlopqu'meH} makes perfect sense in the aforementioned example b. even if we discarded {yIlopqu'meH}, then again I would expect to see {Dalopqu'meH}. The intended meaning goes "YOU come to celebrate IT". my original problem with that sentence, didn't actually have to do with the imperative ; it had to do with the choice of a no-object prefix. ngup Hurgh On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 6:43 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 7/20/2016 11:40 AM, André Müller wrote:
2016-07-20 17:31 GMT+02:00 Steven Boozer <sboozer@uchicago.edu>:
jagh yIjeymeH ‘ej nIteb yISuvrup!
HIq yISammeH! tach yI'el!
I wouldn't judge these as grammatically well-formed Klingon sentences. It feels like trying to use 2 aspects for the same verb. You'd have to decide, either imperative, or a purposive subclause. Both doesn't work.
I think that's what he meant to do, but forgot to remove the -meH from each. For the sentences to make sense, you'd also have to reverse the order of the clauses:
nIteb yISuv 'ej jagh yIjey
tach yI'el 'ej HIq yISam
-- SuStel http://trimboli.name
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org