[Tlhingan-hol] {-meH}ed nouns

[SuStel]

On 1/27/2016 3:20 PM, qov at kli.org wrote:
> lut! lut qon chu'wI'ma'. qep'a'Daq qalupmeH qaquchnISchugh vIruch.
>
>> qen, tlhIngan loghDaq buq'IrwIj vIchIjtaHvIS, narghpu' wanI' Huj ;
>
> I would not recommend -pu' here, because you are talking about the
> appearance, not the completion of the appearance. The whole sentence takes
> place at the time of the appearance, right? Perfective is for when something
> is complete at the time of the sentence, not for when it happens at the time
> of the sentence.

No, qunnoq has it right. Perfective is for completion at any time, not 
"already complete" at the time of the sentence. If it tells you WHEN it 
happens, that would be tense.

Here, a strange event appeared, to completion, recently and while 
navigating a cube in Klingon space.

Saying just {nargh} would mean that, recently and while navigating a 
cube in Klingon space, a strange event happens but is not 
complete/strange events tend to happen/strange events do happen but not 
necessarily at any given moment that we're going to talk about/etc. But 
it definitely doesn't mean a strange event happens and happens to 
completion.

>> vIleghDI', jIja'egh *purpose clause* 'oH buvDaj'e'.
>
> The object of ja' is the person addressed, so I supposed it's okay to put a
> reflexive suffix on it. If you do, you have to spell it correctly, though:
> jIja''egh.

We have canon of the object of {ja'} being either the person addressed 
or the thing told about. I think it's likely that the thing told about 
is the direct object and the person addressed is the indirect object, 
but both are "objects" and can thus be plugged into the object position.

>> Do' So'Ha' Qov voragh je Dujmey 'ej De' 'ut mulI'.
>> luckily Qov and voragh ships decloacked and transmitted me the necessary
>> data.
>
> I would have said Qov Duj, voragh Duj je.
> Two reasons:
> 1. It's a little awkward having a conjunction in between one noun and
> another in a noun-noun construction. I'm not sure it's wrong.

I don't see a problem with it. Generally wherever one can use a noun one 
can also use a noun phrase. Complicated noun phrases might be 
technically correct but too difficult to parse, but I don't think this 
reaches that point.

> 2. It makes it sound like voragh and I jointly operate a group of ships,
> rather than we each pilot our own.

Agreed, though I'm not sure that's definite. English has a prescriptive 
rule that says that "Qov's and Voragh's ships" are independently owned 
while "Qov and Voragh's ships" are jointly owned, but we don't really 
know that Klingon does the same.

>> (is the prefix trick here correct ?)

It is.

-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name