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> 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)?

-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name

_______________________________________________
tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org
http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org