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

Wed Jan 6 01:29:17 PST 2016

> 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.
bIlugh.

> > 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.
Only flaw there is that -DI' is "when" not "if" -- "I guess I annoyed him when I questioned him"
> 
> is {lI'Ha'be'} <useless> ?

lI' is useful, so lI'Ha' is the undoing of that: useless, a waste,  I can't think of the perfect English word, but here's an old discussion on the topic:

http://www.kli.org/activities/email-discussion-group/?tlhy=1997&tlhm=June&tlhp=msg00593.html

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

Even if it just reminds you that we all make mistakes. :-)

lojmIjmajvaD 'ay' lugh Suqta' loDnalwI' 'a QongnISmo'  wej jon.

  - Qov ‘utlh
--
Online Klingon Course free to all KLI members: http://www.kli.org/members-only/klcp-prep/

> 
> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Tlhingan-hol mailing list
> Tlhingan-hol at kli.org
> http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol