[Tlhingan-hol] Klingon Word of the Day: tlhutlh

[Will Martin]

Interesting.

{-vo’} does imply a direction of travel, and most commonly, it’s uses to describe the motion of the subject of a verb of motion. But…

targhwIjvo’ Hom vInge’.

In this case, the direct object is the thing moved, and the direction of motion is defined by the noun with {-vo’}, and if you can’t say it this way, how could it be said?

I can come up with several really bad suggestions. This one seems far more appropriate.

So, back to your example, would people still have difficulty if you were explicit?

HIvje’vo’ HIq vItlhutlh.

And if this is acceptable, why not get even more vague about the direct object?

HIvje’vo’ jItlhutlh.

I’m having less trouble with this than some others are. The action of the verb involves a prepositional relationship with a noun. Something moves from the glass. Does it have to be the subject? I suspect not.

pItlh
lojmIt tI'wI'nuv



> On Nov 18, 2015, at 1:02 PM, Fatairae <fatairae at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> On Nov 18, 2015, at 12:19, SuStel <sustel at trimboli.name <mailto:sustel at trimboli.name>> wrote:
>> 
>> However, you used the wrong verb prefix. {mu-} means "he/she/it/they do something to me." You want {jI-} "I do something (not to anything in particular)."
> 
> 
> Ahh, of course, grabbed the wrong prefix.  Been trying to not reference charts, and just use what's in my brain.
>   However, in the original construction, I was meaning to think:
> 
>   HIvje'vo' vItlhutlh :  From the cup, I drink (it)
> 
>   The implied (it) is the liquid DO in a previous msg.  Would that change the argument about -vo'?  It is the "it" which is being drunk (moved) away from the cup.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Tlhingan-hol mailing list
> Tlhingan-hol at kli.org
> http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol/attachments/20151118/d55aa7cf/attachment.html>