nIqolay Q:

Why wouldn't you?

I don't know.. Perhaps in order to avoid writing an additional entire sentence, where fewer words would do. ~ mayqel qunen'oS teravam'vo' ngabjaj Hoch dogmey

Am 23.11.2018 um 19:11 schrieb mayqel qunenoS:

Or (may qeylIS forgive me..), because that's how it's usually done in greek/english..

hahahaha - this just is not English! So first, repetition is usual in Klingon and not a problem of bad style. Second, if you go deeper into grammar, an adverbial describes the way of an action, so you would nee a verb. As long as we have no counter example that tells us we can use vabDot like neH, I would avoid using it standing alone. Besides, I think that grammtically spoken, it's weird in English as well. So while speaking, I may even understand what you say, but in a written book, I'd avoid it. Think of vabDot more than just "even" or "also". A phrase would also look weird in English if you say "Everyone can learn Klingon, furthermore you." Don't you think so? PS: use {je}. Oh - and by the way, I think your suggestion sounds ambiguous: A - yaS lumojlaH Hoch, vabDot DI'raqwIj B - vabDot DI'raqlIj lumojlaH'a'? -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.klingonisch.de http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/Adverbial

{Hoch} is grammatically singular. As a subject, it should call for the null prefix. Using {lu-} anyway will be understood, but it’s like saying “everyones”.

In this case, I would agree with you, as you're saying "any/every person/individual", rather than "everybody (taken together)". However, I don't think it's the case that {Hoch} itself is intrinsically singular. On its own, we have at least one canonical example where it is explicitly plural: ----------------------------------- Hoch qImmoH mu'meyDaj ghob 'agh 'ej val yIntaH 'e' luleghmo' chaH mer All were bemused by his words, Wise and full of spirit, And astonished to see him alive. (paq'batlh, paq'raD, Canto 7, Stanza 9) ----------------------------------- One might point out that paq'batlh does contain a fair number of errors, and MO does sometimes forget the lu- prefix (I blame Maltz' frequent trips to Morska), so this is not necessarily the strongest evidence. Still, this would be consistent with the way it's used as a quantifier (as described here: http://klingonska.org/canon/1996-06-holqed-05-2-a.txt ). Again, not really proof (since the number of the last noun would be what determines the grammatical number), but unless there's some other source negating it, I'd say the best bet is that {Hoch} can be either singular or plural. Still, if one wishes to stay on the safe side, one can always throw on an explicitly plural noun to make it plural. //loghaD ________________________________________ From: tlhIngan-Hol <tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org> on behalf of Alan Anderson <qunchuy@alcaco.net> Sent: Friday, November 23, 2018 21:19 To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org Subject: Re: [tlhIngan Hol] Does {vabDot} always require a verb ? On Nov 23, 2018, at 9:26 AM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:

Suppose I want to say "everyone can become an officer, even my sheep". I could write {yaS lumojlaH Hoch, vabDot yaS mojlaH DI'raqwIj}.

{Hoch} is grammatically singular. As a subject, it should call for the null prefix. Using {lu-} anyway will be understood, but it’s like saying “everyones”.

But could I just write instead, {yaS lumojlaH Hoch, vabDot DI'raqwIj} ?

“Additionally, my [sheep].” What about it? The sentence is incomplete. Can everyone be a sheep too? Can a sheep be an officer too? Either seems as likely/unlikely as the other.

Do we necessarily need to use a verb with the {vabDot} ?

If you want to be grammatically proper, you need a verb. Why would you leave it off? The Monopoly example repeats the verb: {Qo'noS romuluS je boSuqlaH. vabDot tera' Qejbogh DIvI' ram boSuqlaH.} -- ghunchu'wI' _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org