[Tlhingan-hol] tlhInganpu'

[John R. Harness]

Thanks everyone for your help. I had a sneaking suspicion that what I was
suggesting wasn't quite right!

RE: chon/wam: UGH this isn't the first time veqlargh has made that error.
HIvqa' veqlargh!


--

Socialist Alternative <http://www.socialistalternative.org/>
Klingon Language Institute <http://www.kli.org/>

On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 12:27 PM, Robyn Stewart <robyn at flyingstart.ca>
wrote:

> You have my twofold agreement: canon should be honoured, and vay' is a
> better choice than Doch, regardless of canon.
>
> - Qov
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: De'vID [mailto:de.vid.jonpin at gmail.com]
> > Sent: May 19, 2016 5:18
> > To: tlhIngan Hol mailing list
> > Cc: Robyn Stewart
> > Subject: Re: [Tlhingan-hol] tlhInganpu'
> >
> > Qov:
> > > I’ll chime with the caution that the “headless relative clause” is
> > > unattributed in Klingon.  The noun that is the subject or object of
> > > the verb with –bogh has to be explicit in order for it to be the
> > > subject or object of another verb.
> > >
> > > ? neHbogh chargh tlhIngan
> > > Doch neHbogh chargh tlhIngan =  a Klingon conquers the thing that s/he
> > > wants
> > >
> > > We could say {ngoQ luneHbogh} or {Doch luneHbogh}, but I don’t think
> > > we even need that.  How about we substitute {ngoQ} or {chabal} for
> {Doch
> > neHbogh}?
> > >
> > > chabal chargh tlhIngan = A Klingon conquers that which s/he desires.
> >
> > I'm surprised no one has mentioned this yet, but the canonical rendition
> of
> > this (TKW p.149) uses {vay'} as the head noun. I won't quote it so as
> not to
> > spoil it for anyone who wants to try to express the idea themselves.
> >
> > --
> > De'vID
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tlhingan-hol mailing list
> Tlhingan-hol at kli.org
> http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol/attachments/20160519/9363bf7b/attachment-0001.html>