#dc comics#dc#batman#dc universe#bruce wayne#tim drake#batfam#batfamily#dick grayson#dc fanart
seen from Germany
seen from United Kingdom
seen from United States
seen from Saudi Arabia
seen from Canada
seen from Russia
seen from United Kingdom
seen from United States
seen from France
seen from Singapore
seen from Finland
seen from Malaysia
seen from United States
seen from Türkiye
seen from Romania
seen from Canada
seen from Romania
seen from Brazil
seen from United States
seen from China
ghaH / ghaHtaH: *tera'ngan jIH* 'ach *tera'Daq jIHtaH* qoj *bomwI' qabqu' ghaH jaghtIn bIybe''e'* 'ach *rura' pente'Daq ghaHnIStaH jaghtIn bIybe''e'* --- jIlugh'a'?
bIlughbej! {{{XD>
"7/31: {aw} 7/31: {Iw} 8/1: {ow}": I have an impression that sth like "7/31: {aw} 7/32: {ow, uw, f, k, z} 8/1: {Iw}" has been implied. As more sounds are introduced, could you please include some words with peculiar sequences e.g. {Qq} in {'oQqar}, {ghH} in {peghHa'} (and later {rghH} in {tlhorghHa'}), {''} in {pe''egh}, as well as examples of {-ay'}, {-ey'}, {-oy'}, {-uy'}, {-aw'}?
But of course. rgh is in there, as are Iy, uy, maybe DS from toDSaH and doubled consonants. ‘ qaghwI’ will also point out how most words do not begin with a vowel - if the first sound is a vowel, Klingon prefaces the vowel sound with a qaghwI’ glottal stop.
This too will be covered.
Unrelated: I recently came across wiki-qephom-de/En/KlingonInOtherLanguages and was (pleasantly) surprised that there are Terran languages not following English "Kl-"; in particular, Welsh "Tllingoneg", where "tll" much better fits {tlh}, is just amazing. Is it you who is behind this Welsh translation?
Let's just say that some people asked me some questions about the Klingon language some time ago.
(2/4) Indirect object--bound relative clauses a.k.a. [the ship in which I arrived]. As it is illegal to mark an indirect object (which already has ns5 {-Daq/-vo'/-mo'/-vaD}) with an extra ns5 {-'e'}, a possible solution is to re-phrase the clause using another verb so that the indirect object becomes direct, e.g. {veng vIDabbogh} or {jagh vIHoHmeH nuH vIlo'bogh}. I am interested in a selection of verbs than can be used to avoid ns5's, and in other solutions available. Qapla'!
What do you think? Can we all discuss this over the weekend? It's okay to continue with the music posts at the same time.
Qualified comparatives and similes: (1) "A is *much* more C than B" -> {A C law'qu' B C puS}? (2) "A is *approximately* as C as B" -> {C A; B rurlaw'}? Qapla'!
Actually, this does deserve a long look. This can be the topic of conversation for the rest of this week.
(3/4) "Whose" relative clauses: are there other approaches to [A person whose computer works] than {Qapbogh De'wI' ghajbogh ghot}?
It depends on what you want to do with the person who has a working computer.
The rest of the sentence will typically be something like Kill the man with a working computer, Identify the man with a working computer or Bring a man with a working computer to me!
I find myself restructuring the sentence along the lines of
Qapbogh De'wI' ghaj vay' 'e' DaH naDev yIqem Somebody has a working computer - bring him here now!
or
Qapbogh De'wI' ghaj vay' 'e' yIngu' Somebody has a working computer - identify him!
Always restructure a sentence in favour of accuracy, straightforwardness, aggressiveness and/or strength.
(4/4): A general instrumental question: is there a simple way to express e.g. [with a weapon] in [I kill the enemy with a weapon]. While there is a solution with a purpose clause and {lo'}, it is sometimes desirable not to put the focus on the instrument. I often have an impression that an ns5 is missing... Qapla'!
You could use -meH:
jagh vIHoHmeH nuHvam vIlo'ta' I used this weapon to kill the enemy
(And more) Sentences as _subjects_: [It is good that the enemy is dead]---I suspect that the solution is straightforward, but I somehow cannot arrive at it.
When using 'e' or net, you are making two sentences into one, in effect. The sentence preceding 'e' or net is intended to be complex - the pronouns reduce that whole sentence to just one "placeholder" word, which is always treated as the object of the following sentence.
Hegh jagh The enemy is dead is one sentence. maj Good is another. Hegh jagh 'e' maj It is good that the enemy is dead is one sentence made from two component parts.
When parsing the sentence, 'e' here should be parsed something like (Hegh jagh) <-- maj.
pegh Sovvam 'e' lI' It is useful that this knowledge is secret
pegh Sovvetlh net Har It is believed that that knowledge is secret
reH tuchlu'bogh De' neH ghoqwI'pu' net Sov One knows that enemy spies always want forbidden data
bIbechtaH 'e' vISaHbe' I don't care that you are suffering
bItlhIbchu' 'e' tlhaQqu' Your incompetence is hilarious
If the first phrase is simpler than the second, usually the simpler clause is going to be one of the other kinds of clause - i.e. they have a Type 9 verb suffix such as -mo', -pa' and so on.
tlhIbmo' batlh Heghbe'pu' He died without honour because he was incompetent
