'ay' ghaj Qeb joH return of the king much. mordor lojmIt'a'Daq pawDI' Qeb ghom, SutlhmeH, lojmIt'a'vetlhDaq lIgh. 'ej ghIq, mordorvo', ghoS lIghwI' qIj. mouth of sauron. 'ay'vam vIbejDI', SIbI' lIghwI'vetlh vImuSHa'. mop qIj tuQmo' 'ej horse qIj lIghmo', SIbI' vIparHa'. 'ach latlh meqmey tu'lu'.. tagha'Ha', Qeb ghomvaD Dochbe'law'; 'a buQbejbe'taHvIS, 'ej Dochbe'law'taHvIS, ghettaH net Sov. Qeb ghom tojtaHba', 'ej tojtaHvIS vaq. meqmeyvammo', jIvvo' pov ghaH. HoS mIgh tlhuDba'taH, 'ej latlhpu' buQmeH, mu'meyna' lo'be'taHvIS, nuSlaH 'ej chIw: peyep ! jInaHchu' vaj HIqaDQo'. meqvammo', batlhHa' vang aragorn, 'ej mouth of sauron 'emDaq ghaHtaHvIS HoH. yInga' aragorn.. mouth of sauron yIquvmoH ! qunnoH jan puqloD ghoghwIj HablI'vo' vIngeHta'
On 12/20/2016 8:32 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
meqvammo', batlhHa' vang aragorn, 'ej mouth of sauron 'emDaq ghaHtaHvIS HoH.
Qu'vatlh! paqDaq batlhHa' vangbe' /Aragorn;/ lut quvHa'moHpu' /Jackson./ paq yIlaD. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
SuStel:
paq yIlaD
tugh, Qeb joH paq vIvun, 'ej tolkien lutna' vIlaDlaH ! 'ach wanI'vam cha' much: gandalfvaD jatlhtaHvIS mouth of sauron, lIghchoH aragorn.. mouth of sauron 'emDaq ghaHtaHDI', yanDaj QIq 'ej ghIq, leghlaHbe'taHvIS mouth of sauron, nachDaj chev ! hahaha ! nuchna' ! qunnoH jan puqloD ghoghwIj HablI'vo' vIngeHta' On 20 Dec 2016 4:16 pm, "SuStel" <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 12/20/2016 8:32 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
meqvammo', batlhHa' vang aragorn, 'ej mouth of sauron 'emDaq ghaHtaHvIS HoH.
Qu'vatlh! paqDaq batlhHa' vangbe' *Aragorn;* lut quvHa'moHpu' *Jackson.* paq yIlaD.
-- SuStelhttp://trimboli.name
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 12/20/2016 9:25 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
SuStel:
paq yIlaD
tugh, Qeb joH paq vIvun, 'ej tolkien lutna' vIlaDlaH !
'ach wanI'vam cha' much:
gandalfvaD jatlhtaHvIS mouth of sauron, lIghchoH aragorn.. mouth of sauron 'emDaq ghaHtaHDI', yanDaj QIq 'ej ghIq, leghlaHbe'taHvIS mouth of sauron, nachDaj chev !
hahaha ! nuchna' !
qunnoH jan puqloD ghoghwIj HablI'vo' vIngeHta'
On 20 Dec 2016 4:16 pm, "SuStel" <sustel@trimboli.name <mailto:sustel@trimboli.name>> wrote:
On 12/20/2016 8:32 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
meqvammo', batlhHa' vang aragorn, 'ej mouth of sauron 'emDaq ghaHtaHvIS HoH.
Qu'vatlh! paqDaq batlhHa' vangbe' /Aragorn;/ lut quvHa'moHpu' /Jackson./ paq yIlaD.
Hoch vImughlaHbe'; tlhoy nI'. 'ach qepvam bertlham vImughqang... «mu' botamDI' SoH /Sauron/ nuj je yIDochQo'» [jatlh /Sauron/ nuj, jachtaHvIS]. «DIch DaneH. DIch nobbe' /Sauron./ pungDaj Datlhobpa' ghaH Dalob. Dochmey poQbogh vImuchta'. yIlaj pagh yIlajQo'!» «Dochvam DIlaj!» pay' jatlh /Gandalf./ mopDaj tuQHa''eghmoH 'ej Daqvetlh qIjDaq wov 'ej chIS; yan rur. ghopDajvo' pepta'bogh DoH /Mordor /toy'wI'. chol /Gandalf/ 'ej pe'vIl ghaHvo' wep, mop, yan je tlhap. «jupmaj wIqawmeH Dochvam DItlhap» jatlh /Gandalf. /«'ach Dochmey DapoQbogh DIlajchu'Qo'. yImej. rIn Duy Qu'lIj 'ej tugh bIHegh. /Sauron/ voqlaHbe' vay' 'ej muSlu'; maSutlhmeH naDev 'e' wIghoSbe'*. maSutlh maH toy'wI''a'Daj je 'e' wIHechbe'bej. yImej!» Haghbe'choHpu' /Mordor/ toy'wI'. mer 'ej QeH 'e' 'agh qabDaj. gheD Suqpu'bogh Ha'DIbaH qab rur, ghIchDaj qIpDI' 'oy'naQ. QeHqu'choH /Sauron /nuj 'ej bol. HughDajvo' QeH wab voQlu'bogh QoylaH vay'. 'ach ra'wI' qabmey qu' HoHlaHbogh mInDu' je legh 'ej ghaH lughIj; ramchoH QeHDaj. pe'vIl jach, tlhe', lIghmeH Ha'DIbaH lIt, 'ej /Cirith Gorgor/Daq pe'vIl qet lutlhejtaHvIS ghomDaj. * I know, I know. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
mu'tlhegh ghom Damughta'bogh vIparHa'qu' ! but I need to ask you.. you wrote {mopDaj tuQHa''eghmoH}. I understand this to mean "he took off (undressed) his robe". however, when a word carries the {-'egh}, isn't that word incapable of having an object ? qunnoH jan puqloD 2016-12-20 17:45 GMT+02:00 SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name>:
On 12/20/2016 9:25 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
SuStel:
paq yIlaD
tugh, Qeb joH paq vIvun, 'ej tolkien lutna' vIlaDlaH !
'ach wanI'vam cha' much:
gandalfvaD jatlhtaHvIS mouth of sauron, lIghchoH aragorn.. mouth of sauron 'emDaq ghaHtaHDI', yanDaj QIq 'ej ghIq, leghlaHbe'taHvIS mouth of sauron, nachDaj chev !
hahaha ! nuchna' !
qunnoH jan puqloD ghoghwIj HablI'vo' vIngeHta'
On 20 Dec 2016 4:16 pm, "SuStel" <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 12/20/2016 8:32 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
meqvammo', batlhHa' vang aragorn, 'ej mouth of sauron 'emDaq ghaHtaHvIS HoH.
Qu'vatlh! paqDaq batlhHa' vangbe' Aragorn; lut quvHa'moHpu' Jackson. paq yIlaD.
Hoch vImughlaHbe'; tlhoy nI'. 'ach qepvam bertlham vImughqang...
«mu' botamDI' SoH Sauron nuj je yIDochQo'» [jatlh Sauron nuj, jachtaHvIS]. «DIch DaneH. DIch nobbe' Sauron. pungDaj Datlhobpa' ghaH Dalob. Dochmey poQbogh vImuchta'. yIlaj pagh yIlajQo'!»
«Dochvam DIlaj!» pay' jatlh Gandalf. mopDaj tuQHa''eghmoH 'ej Daqvetlh qIjDaq wov 'ej chIS; yan rur. ghopDajvo' pepta'bogh DoH Mordor toy'wI'. chol Gandalf 'ej pe'vIl ghaHvo' wep, mop, yan je tlhap. «jupmaj wIqawmeH Dochvam DItlhap» jatlh Gandalf. «'ach Dochmey DapoQbogh DIlajchu'Qo'. yImej. rIn Duy Qu'lIj 'ej tugh bIHegh. Sauron voqlaHbe' vay' 'ej muSlu'; maSutlhmeH naDev 'e' wIghoSbe'*. maSutlh maH toy'wI''a'Daj je 'e' wIHechbe'bej. yImej!»
Haghbe'choHpu' Mordor toy'wI'. mer 'ej QeH 'e' 'agh qabDaj. gheD Suqpu'bogh Ha'DIbaH qab rur, ghIchDaj qIpDI' 'oy'naQ. QeHqu'choH Sauron nuj 'ej bol. HughDajvo' QeH wab voQlu'bogh QoylaH vay'. 'ach ra'wI' qabmey qu' HoHlaHbogh mInDu' je legh 'ej ghaH lughIj; ramchoH QeHDaj. pe'vIl jach, tlhe', lIghmeH Ha'DIbaH lIt, 'ej Cirith GorgorDaq pe'vIl qet lutlhejtaHvIS ghomDaj.
* I know, I know.
-- SuStel http://trimboli.name
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 12/20/2016 11:22 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
mu'tlhegh ghom Damughta'bogh vIparHa'qu' !
but I need to ask you.. you wrote {mopDaj tuQHa''eghmoH}. I understand this to mean "he took off (undressed) his robe".
however, when a word carries the {-'egh}, isn't that word incapable of having an object ?
Yeah, yeah, I hate the damn word. Try *mopDaj teq.* -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
maj jupwI' ! 'ej qaQuchmoHmeH DaH qaja': jIvunta': hobbit, silmarillion, Qeb joH 50th anniversary edition paperback je ! qunnoH jan puqloD On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 6:27 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 12/20/2016 11:22 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
mu'tlhegh ghom Damughta'bogh vIparHa'qu' !
but I need to ask you.. you wrote {mopDaj tuQHa''eghmoH}. I understand this to mean "he took off (undressed) his robe".
however, when a word carries the {-'egh}, isn't that word incapable of having an object ?
Yeah, yeah, I hate the damn word. Try mopDaj teq.
-- SuStel http://trimboli.name
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 12/20/2016 11:34 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
'ej qaQuchmoHmeH DaH qaja': jIvunta': hobbit, silmarillion, Qeb joH 50th anniversary edition paperback je !
majQa'! DatIv 'e' vItul. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On Dec 20, 2016 17:23, "mayqel qunenoS" <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote: mu'tlhegh ghom Damughta'bogh vIparHa'qu' ! but I need to ask you.. you wrote {mopDaj tuQHa''eghmoH}. I understand this to mean "he took off (undressed) his robe". however, when a word carries the {-'egh}, isn't that word incapable of having an object ? romuluSngan HoH'eghmoHlaH'a' tlhIngan? -- De'vID
De'vID:
romuluSngan HoH'eghmoHlaH'a' tlhIngan?
I can't understand this.. "the klingon is able to make himself kill the romulan" ? Is this canon ? qunnoH jan puqloD ghoghwIj HablI'vo' vIngeHta' On 20 Dec 2016 8:26 pm, "De'vID" <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:
On Dec 20, 2016 17:23, "mayqel qunenoS" <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
mu'tlhegh ghom Damughta'bogh vIparHa'qu' !
but I need to ask you.. you wrote {mopDaj tuQHa''eghmoH}. I understand this to mean "he took off (undressed) his robe".
however, when a word carries the {-'egh}, isn't that word incapable of having an object ?
romuluSngan HoH'eghmoHlaH'a' tlhIngan?
-- De'vID
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
De'vID:
romuluSngan HoH'eghmoHlaH'a' tlhIngan? I can't understand this.. "the klingon is able to make himself kill the romulan" ? Is this canon ?
The way I understand it is: "Can the Klingon make the Romulan kill himself?" I think the problem is that we are not just in a structure of "X makes Y do something", we've added " 'egh" in the mix. So the Romulan is now both Subject and Object of its own action "HoH", whereas "-moHlaH" refers to the Klingon's action. In fact, within the verb construct, some parts refer to the Romulan's action (The Romulan as the subject of <HoH'egh>) and the last suffixes refer to the Klingon's action on the Romulan (<-moHlaH'a'>) At least that's how I interpret it. I'm not sure I'm being very coherent or clear tonight. Hopefully a more expert Klingonist can shed some more light on this :) ~mughwI' 2016-12-20 19:52 GMT+01:00 mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com>:
De'vID:
romuluSngan HoH'eghmoHlaH'a' tlhIngan?
I can't understand this.. "the klingon is able to make himself kill the romulan" ?
Is this canon ?
qunnoH jan puqloD ghoghwIj HablI'vo' vIngeHta'
On 20 Dec 2016 8:26 pm, "De'vID" <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:
On Dec 20, 2016 17:23, "mayqel qunenoS" <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
mu'tlhegh ghom Damughta'bogh vIparHa'qu' !
but I need to ask you.. you wrote {mopDaj tuQHa''eghmoH}. I understand this to mean "he took off (undressed) his robe".
however, when a word carries the {-'egh}, isn't that word incapable of having an object ?
romuluSngan HoH'eghmoHlaH'a' tlhIngan?
-- De'vID
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 12/20/2016 2:05 PM, Aurélie Demonchaux wrote:
Hopefully a more expert Klingonist can shed some more light on this :)
I can! "Don't do it." -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
shame on me ! I forgot the {-'a'}.. however, there is the canon sentence {Qo'noS tuqmey muvchuqmoH qeylIS} for "kahless united the tribes of kronos". (1, p.179) I remember we had discussed this sentence sometime ago, however I don't remember what was said.. qunnoH jan puqloD ghoghwIj HablI'vo' vIngeHta' On 20 Dec 2016 9:07 pm, "SuStel" <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 12/20/2016 2:05 PM, Aurélie Demonchaux wrote:
Hopefully a more expert Klingonist can shed some more light on this :)
I can! "Don't do it."
-- SuStel http://trimboli.name
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
Thanks SuStel for the prompt reply! Looks like this point is still under some debate though. mayqel:
however, there is the canon sentence {Qo'noS tuqmey muvchuqmoH qeylIS} for "kahless united the tribes of kronos". (1, p.179) I remember we had discussed this sentence sometime ago, however I don't remember what was said..
mayqel, is this the thread you were thinking of ? http://www.kli.org/tlhIngan-Hol/2012/February/msg00081.html ~mughwI' 2016-12-20 20:38 GMT+01:00 mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com>:
shame on me ! I forgot the {-'a'}..
however, there is the canon sentence {Qo'noS tuqmey muvchuqmoH qeylIS} for "kahless united the tribes of kronos". (1, p.179)
I remember we had discussed this sentence sometime ago, however I don't remember what was said..
qunnoH jan puqloD ghoghwIj HablI'vo' vIngeHta'
On 20 Dec 2016 9:07 pm, "SuStel" <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 12/20/2016 2:05 PM, Aurélie Demonchaux wrote:
Hopefully a more expert Klingonist can shed some more light on this :)
I can! "Don't do it."
-- SuStel http://trimboli.name
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
ghobe'. on 2012 I hadn't joined the list. I came here the september of 2015. other than that, I can't remember the thread this was discussed. but I distinctively remember, we had definitely concerned ourselves with that sentence.. qunnoH jan puqloD ghoghwIj HablI'vo' vIngeHta' On 20 Dec 2016 9:51 pm, "Aurélie Demonchaux" <demonchaux.aurelie@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks SuStel for the prompt reply!
Looks like this point is still under some debate though.
mayqel:
however, there is the canon sentence {Qo'noS tuqmey muvchuqmoH qeylIS} for "kahless united the tribes of kronos". (1, p.179) I remember we had discussed this sentence sometime ago, however I don't remember what was said..
mayqel, is this the thread you were thinking of ?
http://www.kli.org/tlhIngan-Hol/2012/February/msg00081.html
~mughwI'
2016-12-20 20:38 GMT+01:00 mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com>:
shame on me ! I forgot the {-'a'}..
however, there is the canon sentence {Qo'noS tuqmey muvchuqmoH qeylIS} for "kahless united the tribes of kronos". (1, p.179)
I remember we had discussed this sentence sometime ago, however I don't remember what was said..
qunnoH jan puqloD ghoghwIj HablI'vo' vIngeHta'
On 20 Dec 2016 9:07 pm, "SuStel" <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 12/20/2016 2:05 PM, Aurélie Demonchaux wrote:
Hopefully a more expert Klingonist can shed some more light on this :)
I can! "Don't do it."
-- SuStel http://trimboli.name
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
however Aurelie, don't worry.. tomorrow, I will search my notes, and copy-paste what was said at that thread ! DaH, jIDoy'qu'mo' jIQongnIS ! maj ram.. qunnoH jan puqloD ghoghwIj HablI'vo' vIngeHta' On 20 Dec 2016 10:03 pm, "mayqel qunenoS" <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
ghobe'. on 2012 I hadn't joined the list. I came here the september of 2015. other than that, I can't remember the thread this was discussed.
but I distinctively remember, we had definitely concerned ourselves with that sentence..
qunnoH jan puqloD ghoghwIj HablI'vo' vIngeHta'
On 20 Dec 2016 9:51 pm, "Aurélie Demonchaux" <demonchaux.aurelie@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks SuStel for the prompt reply!
Looks like this point is still under some debate though.
mayqel:
however, there is the canon sentence {Qo'noS tuqmey muvchuqmoH qeylIS} for "kahless united the tribes of kronos". (1, p.179) I remember we had discussed this sentence sometime ago, however I don't remember what was said..
mayqel, is this the thread you were thinking of ?
http://www.kli.org/tlhIngan-Hol/2012/February/msg00081.html
~mughwI'
2016-12-20 20:38 GMT+01:00 mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com>:
shame on me ! I forgot the {-'a'}..
however, there is the canon sentence {Qo'noS tuqmey muvchuqmoH qeylIS} for "kahless united the tribes of kronos". (1, p.179)
I remember we had discussed this sentence sometime ago, however I don't remember what was said..
qunnoH jan puqloD ghoghwIj HablI'vo' vIngeHta'
On 20 Dec 2016 9:07 pm, "SuStel" <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 12/20/2016 2:05 PM, Aurélie Demonchaux wrote:
Hopefully a more expert Klingonist can shed some more light on this :)
I can! "Don't do it."
-- SuStel http://trimboli.name
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On Dec 20, 2016 19:52, "mayqel qunenoS" <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote: however, when a word carries the {-'egh}, isn't that word incapable of having an object ? De'vID:
romuluSngan HoH'eghmoHlaH'a' tlhIngan?
I can't understand this.. "the klingon is able to make himself kill the romulan" ? Is this canon wotvaD mojaq vIchel'eghmoHta'DI' Dayajbe''a'? -- De'vID
On 12/20/2016 5:50 PM, De'vID wrote:
On Dec 20, 2016 19:52, "mayqel qunenoS" <mihkoun@gmail.com <mailto:mihkoun@gmail.com>> wrote:
however, when a word carries the {-'egh}, isn't that word incapable of
having an object ?
De'vID:
> romuluSngan HoH'eghmoHlaH'a' tlhIngan?
I can't understand this.. "the klingon is able to make himself kill the romulan" ?
Is this canon
wotvaD mojaq vIchel'eghmoHta'DI' Dayajbe''a'?
I can follow the English-to-Klingon logic of these sentences, but I do not see the sequence of grammatical rules that construct them from Klingon originally and legally. Unless you're saying that we can read this as *vI- [chel'egh] -moH*/I cause it to self-add,/ where *chel'egh* is being treated as a separate verb. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
De'vID:
wotvaD mojaq vIchel'eghmoHta'DI' Dayajbe''a'?
I can understand the meaning of the sentence, but I can't understand the grammar. Since we have the {-'egh}, I can't understand how the verb which carries it can obtain a subject. jIH for Aurelie Demonchaux:
however Aurelie, don't worry.. tomorrow, I will search my notes, and copy-paste what was said at that thread
luckily, I was able to locate the thread. go to: http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/2016-July/000911.html and then press "next message" in order to see the rest of the replies. qunnoH jan puqloD On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 3:07 AM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 12/20/2016 5:50 PM, De'vID wrote:
On Dec 20, 2016 19:52, "mayqel qunenoS" <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
however, when a word carries the {-'egh}, isn't that word incapable of
having an object ?
De'vID:
romuluSngan HoH'eghmoHlaH'a' tlhIngan?
I can't understand this.. "the klingon is able to make himself kill the romulan" ?
Is this canon
wotvaD mojaq vIchel'eghmoHta'DI' Dayajbe''a'?
I can follow the English-to-Klingon logic of these sentences, but I do not see the sequence of grammatical rules that construct them from Klingon originally and legally. Unless you're saying that we can read this as vI- [chel'egh] -moH I cause it to self-add, where chel'egh is being treated as a separate verb.
-- SuStel http://trimboli.name
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 21 December 2016 at 09:10, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
De'vID:
wotvaD mojaq vIchel'eghmoHta'DI' Dayajbe''a'?
I can understand the meaning of the sentence, but I can't understand the grammar. Since we have the {-'egh}, I can't understand how the verb which carries it can obtain a subject.
yItaD'eghmoH! qogh DatuQmoHHa'pu'! -- De'vID
aragorn.. gondor ta' ! leghlaHbe'taHvIS nuvpu' HoHbogh ta'.. nuvpu' 'emDaq ghaHtaHvIS HoHbogh ta' ! hahaha ! qunnoH jan puqloD ghoghwIj HablI'vo' vIngeHta' On 21 Dec 2016 11:15 am, "De'vID" <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:
On 21 December 2016 at 09:10, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
De'vID:
wotvaD mojaq vIchel'eghmoHta'DI' Dayajbe''a'?
I can understand the meaning of the sentence, but I can't understand the grammar. Since we have the {-'egh}, I can't understand how the verb which carries it can obtain a subject.
yItaD'eghmoH! qogh DatuQmoHHa'pu'!
-- De'vID _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
'a jISIvbe'choHlaHbe'.. qatlh nga'chuqbe' aragorn, elrod puqbe', theoden puqbe' je. hmm ? qatlh. elrod puqbe', theoden puqbe' je raQlaHbe''a' aragorn. Do', aragorn jIHbe', 'a aragorn jIH net jalchugh vaj vInga'bej.. qunnoH jan puqloD ghoghwIj HablI'vo' vIngeHta' On 21 Dec 2016 3:56 pm, "mayqel qunenoS" <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
aragorn.. gondor ta' ! leghlaHbe'taHvIS nuvpu' HoHbogh ta'.. nuvpu' 'emDaq ghaHtaHvIS HoHbogh ta' ! hahaha !
qunnoH jan puqloD ghoghwIj HablI'vo' vIngeHta'
On 21 Dec 2016 11:15 am, "De'vID" <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:
On 21 December 2016 at 09:10, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
De'vID:
wotvaD mojaq vIchel'eghmoHta'DI' Dayajbe''a'?
I can understand the meaning of the sentence, but I can't understand the grammar. Since we have the {-'egh}, I can't understand how the verb which carries it can obtain a subject.
yItaD'eghmoH! qogh DatuQmoHHa'pu'!
-- De'vID _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
JIH for mayqel:
luckily, I was able to locate the thread. go to: http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/2016-July/000911.html and then press "next message" in order to see the rest of the replies.
qatlho' ! 2016-12-21 15:07 GMT+01:00 mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com>:
'a jISIvbe'choHlaHbe'..
qatlh nga'chuqbe' aragorn, elrod puqbe', theoden puqbe' je. hmm ? qatlh. elrod puqbe', theoden puqbe' je raQlaHbe''a' aragorn.
Do', aragorn jIHbe', 'a aragorn jIH net jalchugh vaj vInga'bej..
qunnoH jan puqloD ghoghwIj HablI'vo' vIngeHta'
On 21 Dec 2016 3:56 pm, "mayqel qunenoS" <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
aragorn.. gondor ta' ! leghlaHbe'taHvIS nuvpu' HoHbogh ta'.. nuvpu' 'emDaq ghaHtaHvIS HoHbogh ta' ! hahaha !
qunnoH jan puqloD ghoghwIj HablI'vo' vIngeHta'
On 21 Dec 2016 11:15 am, "De'vID" <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:
On 21 December 2016 at 09:10, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
De'vID:
wotvaD mojaq vIchel'eghmoHta'DI' Dayajbe''a'?
I can understand the meaning of the sentence, but I can't understand the grammar. Since we have the {-'egh}, I can't understand how the verb which carries it can obtain a subject.
yItaD'eghmoH! qogh DatuQmoHHa'pu'!
-- De'vID _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 12/20/2016 5:50 PM, De'vID wrote:
wotvaD mojaq vIchel'eghmoHta'DI' Dayajbe''a'?
ungrammatical for me: TKD, 4.2.1 "This suffix [...] affects the performer of the action, the subject. [...] When this suffix is used, the prefix set indicating 'no object' must also be used." According to the rule, {vIchel'eghmoH} means "I cause myself to..." but it has to be {jIchel'eghmoH}. ja' SuStel:
Klingon originally and legally. Unless you're saying that we can read this as *vI- [chel'egh] -moH*/I cause it to self-add,/ where *chel'egh* is being treated as a separate verb.
The problem lies again in the use of -moH. -- Lieven L. Litaer aka Quvar valer 'utlh Grammarian of the KLI http://www.facebook.com/Klingonteacher http://www.klingonwiki.net
participants (5)
-
Aurélie Demonchaux -
De'vID -
Lieven -
mayqel qunenoS -
SuStel