wa' mu'Daq {-chuq} wIlanpu'chugh, vaj mu'vamDaq {-wI'} wIlanlaH je. 'e' bot pagh chut. 'a {Qaw'chuqwI'} jIjatlhchugh, vaj chay' mu'vam yajnISlu' ? "someones who destroy each other" ? ~ Dana'an
On 11/13/2020 8:42 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
wa' mu'Daq {-chuq} wIlanpu'chugh, vaj mu'vamDaq {-wI'} wIlanlaH je. 'e' bot pagh chut.
'a {Qaw'chuqwI'} jIjatlhchugh, vaj chay' mu'vam yajnISlu' ?
"someones who destroy each other" ?
Yes. In better English, it would be translated /those who destroy each other./ -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
Am 13.11.2020 um 14:56 schrieb SuStel:
"someones who destroy each other" ?
Yes. In better English, it would be translated /those who destroy each other./
The reason for this needs to be added, and it's quite clear from TKD, chapter 4.2.1 about {-chuq}: "This suffix is used only with plural subjects." So this means that any translation of {[verb]chuqwI'} turns out to be plural, although - of course - a single person of them also is a single {[verb]chuqwI'}. I think it'S an awkward situation that does not need a clear answer or rule to be understandable anyway: - paw'a' Hoch ja'chuqwI'pu'? - ghobe'. Dach wa' ja'chuqwI'. -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.tlhInganHol.com http://klingon.wiki/Word/Chuk
On 11/13/2020 9:28 AM, Lieven L. Litaer wrote:
So this means that any translation of {[verb]chuqwI'} turns out to be plural, although - of course - a single person of them also is a single {[verb]chuqwI'}. I think it'S an awkward situation that does not need a clear answer or rule to be understandable anyway:
- paw'a' Hoch ja'chuqwI'pu'? - ghobe'. Dach wa' ja'chuqwI'.
Dajqu'. Though it should be *paw'pu''a',* since you're asking whether all have arrived already. One being absent wouldn't be telling if they were all still in the middle of arriving. The flexibility of Klingon plurals has been impressing me lately. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On 11/13/2020 10:06 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
Qun:
"This suffix is used only with plural subjects." lieven: Dach wa' ja'chuqwI' jIyajbe'; reH cha' SeSor ghajnISchugh {-chuq}, vaj chay' wa' nuv neH boplaH {ja'chuqwI'} ?
*ja'chuqwI'* isn't a verb, it's a noun. A noun does not have subjects. You have to think of it this way: if it were a verb, it would have a plural subject, but it's been turned into a noun, so those plural subjects are only conceptual. One would be perfectly justified in declaring a word like this iffy and complex and in deciding not to use it. But it seems quite sensible to me. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
E.g. elevated or technical jargon like “interlocutor” or “co-respondent” (the legal term). Voragh From: SuStel Sent: Friday, November 13, 2020 9:11 AM On 11/13/2020 10:06 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote: Qun: "This suffix is used only with plural subjects." lieven: Dach wa' ja'chuqwI' jIyajbe'; reH cha' SeSor ghajnISchugh {-chuq}, vaj chay' wa' nuv neH boplaH {ja'chuqwI'} ? ja'chuqwI' isn't a verb, it's a noun. A noun does not have subjects. You have to think of it this way: if it were a verb, it would have a plural subject, but it's been turned into a noun, so those plural subjects are only conceptual. One would be perfectly justified in declaring a word like this iffy and complex and in deciding not to use it. But it seems quite sensible to me.
participants (4)
-
Lieven L. Litaer -
mayqel qunen'oS -
Steven Boozer -
SuStel