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

[mayql qunenoS]

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

thank you, for showing me this. I just read it and it was very informative.

qunnoq

On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 11:29 AM, Robyn Stewart <robyn at flyingstart.ca> wrote:
>> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tlhingan-hol mailing list
> Tlhingan-hol at kli.org
> http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol