[Tlhingan-hol] {'ej 'e'}

[mayql qunenoS]

> DaH yajlu''a'?
yes ! I think I do :

jeghbe'wI' ghaHmo' wotwIjvaD mojaq <-lI'> vIwIv.
because he is one who doesn't surrender, I used {-lI'} suffix for my verb.

> qen jabbI'IDmeyvam vIlaDbe'mo', puQ lojmIt tI'wI' nuv 'e' vISovbe'.
> vaj vIyu'DI' vInuQlaw'. jabbI'IDwIj DaqeHbe'mo' SoH, lI'Ha'be'.
if I understand correctly this means : recently, because I didn't read
these messages, I didn't know that lojmIt tI'wI' nuv was fed up. so,
if I question him, he will apparently be annoyed. because you didn't
resent my message, it wasn't useless.

is {lI'Ha'be'} <useless> ?

anyway, I believe that any sentence written by an experienced
klingonist, is always useful beyond words, for anyone who is trying to
learn.

qunnoq

On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 10:38 AM,  <qov at kli.org> wrote:
> jIghItlhtaHvIS loDnalwI'vaD jIjatlhtaHmo', bong mu' <vIlo'>, <vIwIv> ghap  vInop.  qamISmoH 'e' vIpay.
>
> jeghbe'wI' ghaHmo' wotwIjvaD mojaq <-lI'> vIwIv.
>
> DaH yajlu''a'?
>
> bIghelmo' jIQuch.
>
> qen jabbI'IDmeyvam vIlaDbe'mo', puQ lojmIt tI'wI' nuv 'e' vISovbe'. vaj vIyu'DI' vInuQlaw'. jabbI'IDwIj DaqeHbe'mo' SoH, lI'Ha'be'.
>
> - Qov
>
>> > jeghbe’wI’ ghaHmo’ wotvaD mojaq <-lI’>.
>>
>> jeghbe'wI' = one who does not surrender
>> ghaHmo' = because he/him
>> wotvaD = for verb
>> mojaq {-lI'} = suffix {-lI'}
>>
>> <the suffix {-lI'} for the verb because he/him is one who does not surrender>
>> ?
>>
>> what is this sentence supposed to mean ? I can't figure out, how it is to be
>> translated in english.
>>
>> qunnoq
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 6:01 AM, lojmIt tI'wI' nuv
>> <lojmitti7wi7nuv at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Heghpu' Sargh DaqIptaHbogh.
>> >
>> > Sent from my iPod
>> >
>> > On Jan 5, 2016, at 8:44 PM, <qov at kli.org> <qov at kli.org> wrote:
>> >
>> > lojmIt tI’wI’ nuv, this is interesting. How are you on the naked {‘e’
>> > vISov}.  Let’s give it two different contexts, to see if they make a
>> > difference.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > 1.
>> >
>> > Qanqor: Sorvetlh ‘emDaq jagh tu’lu’.
>> >
>> > Qov: ‘e’ vISov.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > 2.
>> >
>> > Qanqor: Qov, ngoD potlh DaSovnISchoH. [draws disruptor, the <Sang>
>> > setting already selected, and destroys the tree, revealing the
>> > heretofore concealed enemy]
>> >
>> > Qov: ‘e’ vISov.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > That is do you accept ‘e’ when the antecedent is uttered by another
>> > speaker, and do you accept it when the antecedent is implied?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > To me the relationship between:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > lojmIt tI’law’lI’ loDnalwI’ ‘ach lojmIt tI’lI’ loDnalwI’  ‘e’ vIQoybe’.
>> >
>> > and
>> >
>> > lojmIt tI’law’lI’ loDnalwI’ ‘ach ‘e’ vIQoybe’.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > is just the same as the one between:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > lojmIt tI’lI’ loDnalwI’ ‘ach loDnalwI’ vIQoybe’.
>> >
>> > and
>> >
>> > lojmIt tI’lI’ loDnalwI’ ‘ach ghaH vIQoybe’.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > DaH lojmItmaj tI’bejlI’ loDnalwI’ ‘ej vIQoylaH. Do’Ha’ tI’meH ‘ay’ muj
>> > je’pu’mo’, Qapla’ chavbe’. jeghbe’wI’ ghaHmo’ wotvaD mojaq <-lI’>.
>> >
>> > ghaHvaD jabbI’IDvam vImughDI’ jang ghaH. jatlh, jItlhetlhbej. muj
>> > ‘ay’vam ‘e’ vI’ol.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > SKI: The examples in this discussion are drawn from a true event in
>> > progress, and are followed by more details on the event.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >   - Qov ‘utlh
>> >
>> > --
>> >
>> > Online Klingon Course free to all KLI members:
>> > http://www.kli.org/members-only/klcp-prep/
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > From: Will Martin [mailto:lojmitti7wi7nuv at gmail.com]
>> > Sent: January 5, 2016 8:49
>> > To: tlhIngan Hol mailing list
>> > Subject: [Tlhingan-hol] {'ej 'e'}
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > So far, I count one experienced Klingon speaker (me) who thinks that
>> > {‘e’} should not refer to an earlier part of the compound sentence in
>> > which it is contained, and I count at least three who think I’m wrong
>> > in this opinion and foolish for being stubborn about it.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Given the silence of support from any corner of the community, I
>> > concede the point. Do whatever you like with this. I will not comment on it
>> further.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > If someone actually bothers Okrand to address the point directly so
>> > that we have an actual confirmation or denial of it, I think we’d all
>> > be a bit better off than we are now, regardless of how we choose to
>> > resolve our interpretations of the grammar.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > pItlh
>> >
>> > lojmIt tI'wI'nuv
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Tlhingan-hol mailing list
>> > Tlhingan-hol at kli.org
>> > http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Tlhingan-hol mailing list
>> > Tlhingan-hol at kli.org
>> > http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
>> >
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Tlhingan-hol mailing list
>> Tlhingan-hol at kli.org
>> http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tlhingan-hol mailing list
> Tlhingan-hol at kli.org
> http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol