[Tlhingan-hol] nuq bop bom: 'ay' wa'vatlh cha'maH Hut: <no' chavmey>

[ghunchu'wI']

On Jan 24, 2012, at 10:03 AM, Lieven Litaer <lieven.litaer at web.de> wrote:

> Am 24.01.2012 15:40, schrieb David Trimboli:
>> On 1/24/2012 9:37 AM, Lieven Litaer wrote:
>>>> nuja' tlhIngan wIch ja'wI'pu'
>>>> According to Klingon legend... S8
> 
> ghItlh SuStel:
>> That's not a verbal phrase; it's a noun-noun construction.
> 
> Yes, that's correct, {wIch} + {ja'wI'}
> But doesn't this {ja'wI'} tell the {wIch} ?

In this example, the {ja'wI} tells {maH}. The first word tells us so.

> {qagh Sop qagh SopwI'}  ..
> {wIch ja' wIch ja'wI'}  ??

{tuj muv tuj muvwI'} ??

[N V-wI'] isn't the sentence [N V] with a {-wI'} tacked on. I used to think so, but I've found too little supporting evidence and been shown too much contrary evidence.

> Or is the thing being told the indirect object?
> 
>  {lut qaja'}
>  "I tell you a story"

That sort of prefix abuse generally has the prefix pointing to the "indirect object". Your hypothetical example still has {lut} as the object, something we don't seem to have canon support for.

-- ghunchu'wI'