prefix trick on -bogh clauses
prefix trick lulo'laH'a' {-bogh} mu'tlheghHom ? pelaD: ngeb vIqraq junobpu'bogh the artifact which you gave us is fake lugh'a' mu'tlheghvam ? ~ fgfghfgdghk
On 10/26/2020 9:32 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
ngeb vIqraq junobpu'bogh
the artifact which you gave us is fake
lugh'a' mu'tlheghvam ?
pabbej mu'tlheghvam. chaq pabbe' qatlh 'e' DaQub? -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
jIH:
ngeb vIqraq junobpu'bogh the artifact which you gave us is fake lugh'a' mu'tlheghvam ? SuStel: pabbej mu'tlheghvam.
SuStel, vay' qaghelnIS. yIlaD: ngeb maHvaD vIqraq Danobpu'bogh the artifact which you gave for us is fake lugh'a' mu'tlheghvam ? lughmo' prefix trick lo'bogh {-bogh} mu'tlheghHom'e', lugh je prefix trick lo'be'bogh mu'tlhegh 'e' vIpIH. 'a mu'tlheghDaq wa'DIch narghnIS {-vaD}, qar'a' ? vaj chay' lughlaH {ngeb maHvaD vIqraq Danobpu'bogh} ? ~ Q
On 10/27/2020 9:42 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
ngeb maHvaD vIqraq Danobpu'bogh the artifact which you gave for us is fake
lugh'a' mu'tlheghvam ?
HIja'. Dependent clauses have the same grammar as basic sentences. *maHvaD vIqraq Danobpu'bogh*/the artifact which you gave us/ is a valid relative clause, and as with all relative clauses, it may be treated as if it were a noun phrase. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
Yep. Internally, it’s a verb clause. Externally, it’s a noun phrase. English links them with a special pronoun. Klingon links them with a special verb suffix. It’s interesting to see how differently the two languages can accomplish the same meaning. It’s really one sentence encapsulated within another, with the internal one specifying or describing a noun, which has its own role in the outer sentence. charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
On Oct 27, 2020, at 11:24 AM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 10/27/2020 9:42 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
ngeb maHvaD vIqraq Danobpu'bogh the artifact which you gave for us is fake
lugh'a' mu'tlheghvam ? HIja'.
Dependent clauses have the same grammar as basic sentences. maHvaD vIqraq Danobpu'bogh the artifact which you gave us is a valid relative clause, and as with all relative clauses, it may be treated as if it were a noun phrase.
-- SuStel http://trimboli.name <http://trimboli.name/>_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
SuStel:
Dependent clauses have the same grammar as basic sentences. maHvaD vIqraq Danobpu'bogh the artifact which you gave us is a valid relative clause, and as with all relative clauses, it may be treated as if it were a noun phrase.
vaj (jiyajchu'chugh) jIjatlhlaH je: ngeb pIj maHvaD vIqraqmey Danobbogh the artifacts which you often give us are fake lugh'a' mu'tlheghvam ? ~ m
On 10/30/2020 1:36 PM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
ngeb pIj maHvaD vIqraqmey Danobbogh the artifacts which you often give us are fake
lugh'a' mu'tlheghvam ?
Yes. As with all things, if you overload too many nested clauses, your sentences may become incomprehensible, even if they're perfectly grammatical. This one is not so overloaded that it is not understandable; I'm just alerting you to the possibility. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
SuStel, qaDoy'moH vIneHbe'; 'a chu'chu' De'vam, 'ej jIyajmeH, jInID. vaj qaghelnISqa'. 'a qaghelpu'DI', not QIn tlheghvamDaq qaghelqa' 'e' vIlay'(law'..). mu'tlhegh veb vIqon: ngeb wa'Hu' vIqraqmey Danobbogh the artifacts which you gave yesterday are fake lugh'a' mu'tlheghvam ? ~ hjkhjkjhk
On 11/4/2020 8:50 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
ngeb wa'Hu' vIqraqmey Danobbogh the artifacts which you gave yesterday are fake
lugh'a' mu'tlheghvam ?
lugh. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
participants (3)
-
mayqel qunen'oS -
SuStel -
Will Martin