[Tlhingan-hol] Klingon Word of the Day: SIjwI'

[mayql qunenoS]

ok, thank you SuStel and lojmIt tI'wI' nuv ; I understand now the
first and second person object limitation, as far as the prefix trick
is concerned, and I think I'm beginning to understand the {-choH}. if
I repeat the same mistakes, please remind me again.

mayqel mIv Hurgh qunnoq

On Sun, Mar 6, 2016 at 5:55 PM, lojmIt tI'wI' nuv
<lojmitti7wi7nuv at gmail.com> wrote:
> {'uch} means to hold the knife -- to possess it in hand. It does not mean to take it -- to acquire it in hand. If you say that the lieutenant has completed the action of possessing it in his hand, that implies that he no longer holds it. It sounds like you want to point out that he has completed acquiring it.
>
> 'uchchoHta' makes sense. He has intentionally completed the act of beginning to hold the knife, with no suggestion that he has finished holding it.
>
> Sent from my iPad
> lojmIt tI'wI' nuv
>
>> On Mar 6, 2016, at 9:36 AM, mayql qunenoS <mihkoun at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> ...
>>
>> jIH:
>>> nepwI' SoH ! majach ! ..'ej SIjwI' 'uchpu' Sogh.
>>> you liar ! we shouted ! ..and the lieutenant grasped the knife.
>> SuStel:
>>> Hmm. I'm not sure the {-pu'} is correct in this case. The lieutenant
>>> didn't hold and complete holding the knife > at this time, did he? Perhaps
>>> {'uchchoH}?
>>
>> ..or even maybe {'uchta'} ; the lieutenant set out to grasp the knife
>> and succeeded in doing so. I'm not sure though.. the whole aspect
>> grammar continues to confuse me. let alone that I have associated the
>> {-choH} with cases in which <one is becoming something>. i.e <becoming
>> lucky, quiet etc>. Can we say <one "became" to hold the knife ?>.
>>
>>