[Tlhingan-hol] EuroTalk word for "postcard"

[Rohan Fenwick - QeS 'utlh]

ghItlhpu' De'vID, jatlh:
> I know the text was replaced so it doesn't really count as canon, but 
> presumably if a Klingon was asked to describe what a {QIn 'echletHom} is 
> rather than just name it, he'd say whatever the original text was, and 
> I'm curious as to whether it told us anything new about how {ngeH} is 
> used 
 
vIjang, jIjatlh: 
> Not really. But I didn't think there was any real doubt? Doesn't it behave 
> like {nob}? We have a canon example from the Message to Kronos: 
> tlhIngan SuvwI' Duypu' bongeH 'e' lutul tera'nganpu' 
> "[We] Terrans hope you will send Klingon warrior emissaries" 

mujang De'vID, jatlh: 
> We have two canon examples for {ngeHbej} from Star Trek V... one of  
> which mean "cosmos". :-) 

teHbej. :) The other obviously being {toDDujDaj ngeHbej DIvI'}.

taH:
> I was just curious as to whether {ngeH} can be used without an object.   
> In English, you can't say "he sends" without an object (he sends  
> what?), although you can say "he gives" without one (e.g., "he gives  
> generously").  How do Klingon {ngeH} and {nob} behave? 

Remember that any transitive Klingon verb can take the "no-object" prefixes
when appropriate. From TKD:

"This set of prefixes [the no-object prefixes] is also used when an object is
possible, but vague. Thus, {jIyaj} "I understand" can be used when the speaker
understands things in general, knows what is going on, or understands what
another speaker has just said... Similarly, {maSop} "we eat" can be used to
indicate a general act of eating" (TKD 33-34).

So if you have a message to send, you can quite happily say {jIngeHmeH QumwI'
pa' vIjaH} "I'm going to the communications room to send [something]".

> How do you parse {ngeHmeH QIn nav}?

As a purpose-clause {ngeHmeH} modifying the noun-noun construction {QIn nav}
"message paper".

> What's the subject of {ngeH} here?  I suppose it has the same syntactical
> structure as {ghojmeH taj} or {SopmeH pa'} {HIjmeH chaw'} or {chenmoHlu'meH
> Daq}, none of which specify the subject or the object of the verb,

Indeed; I don't think {ngeH} in {ngeHmeH QIn nav} has a subject.

I believe all these examples, with the exception of {chenmoHlu'meH Daq}, show
that purpose-clauses modifying nouns don't need to take agreement prefixes.
Not just that they take the null prefixes when appropriate, but that even in
contexts where null prefixes are impossible, that it's still possible to have
no prefix in this context. I'd accept {ghojmeH tajwIj} "my learning knife",
even if it's going to be me doing the learning and even though {jIghojmeH
tajwIj} would say exactly the same thing in an unequivocally grammatical
way.

Again, that's just my opinion: I don't think there's any canon that directly
backs me up. :/ I'll go back through the paq'batlh to see if anything there
might help, both with the purpose-clause thing and with {ngeH}.

QeS 'utlh