So, if I wanted to make this sentence negative, could I suffix -be' to either Sargh or 'oH?
Why is the suffix velth used here for a single animal rather than vam? The notes say that vam translates as 'this/that' (singular) and velth translates as these/those (plural). I have seen this done in previous questions too.
The notes say that vam translates as 'this/that' (singular) and velth translates as these/those (plural).
No, that's not what the notes say.
"This, these" and "that, those" uses noun suffixes: -vam and -vetlh, respectively: Ha'DIbaHvam "this animal", Ha'DIbaHmeyvetlh "those animals".
Whether "this" or "these" is appropriate as a translation of -vam depends on whether the noun is singular or plural; similarly with "that" or "those" for -vetlh.
So -vam is for "this" or "these" (close things), and -vetlh is for "that" or "those" (far things). Nothing to do with how many things there are.
Do you have a suggestion for a more understandable wording?
Thank you for explaining. :) I copied down some notes in a more simplified form and now realise that I copied this down wrong. jIHvIyaj ej vIghojtaH.
The question I had before this one told me that "Ha'DIbaH" was "meat". Is meat and animal the same word? that's very klingon, but definitely made answering this question confusing.