'o SuStel you're good ! hahaha ! pIn'a'na' SoH ! reH qaHo'qu'.. qarurlaHchugh vaj jIQuchchoHchu' ! qunnoH ghogh HablI'wIjvo' vIngeHta' On 20 Oct 2016 6:43 pm, "SuStel" <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 10/20/2016 11:27 AM, De'vID wrote:
On 20 October 2016 at 17:12, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 10/20/2016 10:25 AM, Steven Boozer wrote:
qaStaHvIS wanI'vam yIDachQo' Don't miss this event! (WSC)
What is WSC?
It said right there in Voragh's mail!
P.S. WSC = Washington Shakespeare Company's "By Any Other Name: An Evening of Shakespeare in Klingon" (2010)
(Probably your mail software elided it, because it was under his signature.)
No, I just missed it.
This appears to be another exception to the general rule: "Generally, when a verb describing a state of being... is used in the imperative form, the suffixes -’egh (reflexive suffix) and -moH (“cause”) are used as well..."
While {Dach} is a "be something" verb, is it a "state of being"? It seems somehow different than verbs like {tuj} or {taD}.
Is "being absent" a state of being? Seems so to me. If the line were *qaStaHvIS wanI'vam yIDach'eghmoHQo'* it would seem to work just as well.
Where is the line between a state of being and not a state of being? Or perhaps the negative *-Qo'* makes the rule not operative because you're not commanding a state of being (the negative *yIDachQo'* versus the positive *yISaH'eghmoH*)?
-- SuStelhttp://trimboli.name
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org