And because of this reason cars should have phasers
motlh, pu'DaH ghaj logh Duj, net Sov. 'ach DaH latlh mu'tlhegh wIqelnIS; qatlh tera'Daq pu'DaH ghajbe' puH Dujmey ? jISov.. chaq DaH SuQubtaH: maw''a' ghaH ? qatlh chabalvam ghaj ? 'ach meq vIghajbej.. pIj, tera'Daq Sor bIngDaq puH DujDaj verghlu'. 'ej puH DujDajvo' tlheDtaHvIS, wa' Doch tlhojlaHbe': SorvetlhDaq bo'Degh tu'lu' ! toH, malja'Daj HuqtaHvIS, puH DujDaj lulammoHtaH bo'Degh jay'. wanI'vam lajlu'Qo' ! cherghlu'Qo' ! 'op ben, athensDaq jIyIntaHvIS, Sor bIngDaq puH DujwIj vIverghta'. ghIq juHwIjDaq vIjaHta'. po veb, puH DujwIj vIleghpu'DI', jIQay'qu' ! bo'Deghmeymo', 'upchoH puH DujwIj ! Dat DujDaq, lam tu'lu', vabDot 'orwI' lojmIt; vabDot lojmItvetlh jI'ev ! toH, tagha', puH Duj Say'moHlu'meH, wejmaH *euro*mey vInob 'ej vInobtaHvIS bo'Deghmey vI'IghmoHtaH.. 'o mu'qaDmey.. bo'DeghmeyvaD mu'qaDmey vIbachta'bogh.. qaSpu' DISmey 'ach mu'qaDmeyvam vIqawtaH ! jajvetlh, wa' Doch vItlhoj: pu'DaH ghajnISbej tera' puH Dujmey.. HoHmeH pu' ghajnIS 'e' vImeqbe', 'ach DoHmoHmeH pu' ghajnISbej.. SKI: no SKI. if you want to understand learn klingon. qunnoH ghoghwIj HablI'vo' vIngeHta'
On 11/9/2016 9:34 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
qatlh tera'Daq pu'DaH ghajbe' puH Dujmey ?
taw QeHmo'.
jISov.. chaq DaH SuQubtaH: maw''a' ghaH ?
reH bIjatlhDI' bImaw' 'e' vIqel. ;) -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
jIH:
qatlh tera'Daq pu'DaH ghajbe' puH Dujmey ? SuStel: taw QeHmo'.
hahaha ! meqvetlh vIjalbe' ! bIlugh.. pu'DaH ghaj puH Dujmey; net jalchugh, vaj tawDaq HoHchuqtaH Hoch ! hahaha ! qunnoH ghoghwIj HablI'vo' vIngeHta' On 9 Nov 2016 4:48 pm, "SuStel" <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 11/9/2016 9:34 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
qatlh tera'Daq pu'DaH ghajbe' puH Dujmey ?
taw QeHmo'.
jISov.. chaq DaH SuQubtaH: maw''a' ghaH ?
reH bIjatlhDI' bImaw' 'e' vIqel. ;)
-- SuStel http://trimboli.name
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
jIH:
wanI'vam lajlu'Qo
I wrote this in order to say "someone refuses to accept this event". Could I write instead {wanI'vam lajQo' wa'} ? Can the {wa'}, "stand alone" in order to mean "one person/someone" ? qunnoH ghoghwIj HablI'vo' vIngeHta' On 9 Nov 2016 5:16 pm, "mayqel qunenoS" <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
jIH:
qatlh tera'Daq pu'DaH ghajbe' puH Dujmey ? SuStel: taw QeHmo'.
hahaha ! meqvetlh vIjalbe' !
bIlugh.. pu'DaH ghaj puH Dujmey; net jalchugh, vaj tawDaq HoHchuqtaH Hoch ! hahaha !
qunnoH ghoghwIj HablI'vo' vIngeHta'
On 9 Nov 2016 4:48 pm, "SuStel" <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 11/9/2016 9:34 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
qatlh tera'Daq pu'DaH ghajbe' puH Dujmey ?
taw QeHmo'.
jISov.. chaq DaH SuQubtaH: maw''a' ghaH ?
reH bIjatlhDI' bImaw' 'e' vIqel. ;)
-- SuStel http://trimboli.name
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 11/9/2016 10:43 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
wanI'vam lajlu'Qo
I wrote this in order to say "someone refuses to accept this event".
Could I write instead {wanI'vam lajQo' wa'} ? Can the {wa'}, "stand alone" in order to mean "one person/someone" ?
Yes. See /TKD /5.2: "Numbers are used as nouns. As such, they may stand alone as subjects or objects or they may modify another noun." But based on /TKD/, *wanI'vam lajQo' wa'* probably means /one (of them) won't accept this event/—in other words, it presupposes the listener already knows about a group, out of which you're singling one. It's not the same as *vay'* or *-lu'*. I think *wanI'vam lajlu'Qo'* is the superior sentence, and better translated /this event won't be accepted./ -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
SuStel:
But based on *TKD*, *wanI'vam lajQo'* *> wa'* probably means *one (of them) won't* *> accept this event*—in other words, it presupposes the listener already knows about a group, out of which you're singling one.
I understand. now that you mention it, the idea for using the {wa'} this way, came from the canon example {wa' yIHoH}, which talks about singling one out of a group. thank you for explaining this ! qunnoH ghoghwIj HablI'vo' vIngeHta' On 9 Nov 2016 7:59 pm, "SuStel" <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 11/9/2016 10:43 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
wanI'vam lajlu'Qo
I wrote this in order to say "someone refuses to accept this event".
Could I write instead {wanI'vam lajQo' wa'} ? Can the {wa'}, "stand alone" in order to mean "one person/someone" ?
Yes. See *TKD *5.2: "Numbers are used as nouns. As such, they may stand alone as subjects or objects or they may modify another noun." But based on *TKD*, *wanI'vam lajQo' wa'* probably means *one (of them) won't accept this event*—in other words, it presupposes the listener already knows about a group, out of which you're singling one. It's not the same as *vay'* or *-lu'*.
I think *wanI'vam lajlu'Qo'* is the superior sentence, and better translated *this event won't be accepted.*
-- SuStelhttp://trimboli.name
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 10:43 AM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
Could I write instead {wanI'vam lajQo' wa'} ? Can the {wa'}, "stand alone" in order to mean "one person/someone" ?
If several people were already in the topic of conversation, you could say {wa'} to refer to one of them. You wouldn't be able to use {wa'} in the manner of English "one" if you wanted to imply an indefinite subject -- that's what the verb suffix {-lu'} is for. -- ghunchu'wI'
DujlIj buQchugh bo'Degh qeQ, begh lI' law' pu' lI' puS. -- ghunchu'wI'
HIja'.. qech QaQ 'oH begh'e'.. qunnoH ghoghwIj HablI'vo' vIngeHta' On 11 Nov 2016 9:21 pm, "Alan Anderson" <qunchuy@alcaco.net> wrote:
DujlIj buQchugh bo'Degh qeQ, begh lI' law' pu' lI' puS.
-- ghunchu'wI'
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
participants (3)
-
Alan Anderson -
mayqel qunenoS -
SuStel