tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Aug 01 12:00:26 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Re[2]: }} KLBC: Life is like...
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Re[2]: }} KLBC: Life is like...
- Date: Tue, 1 Aug 95 12:00:26 EDT
According to [email protected]:
>
> On Mon, 31 Jul 95 charghwI' wrote:
>
> >Well, trying to get to the core of the meaning of this, I came
> >up with:
>
> >Dachoppa' Sojlaw' Dangu'laHbe'bogh ngaSbogh yuchmey'e' rur yIn.
>
> >Mwaaahahahahahaaaa...
>
> Ummm. I may be confused again, but <Sojlaw'> dosen't look right. What is a
> verb suffix doing on a noun? Or is it supposed to be <Soj law'>?
>
> Mwaaaaheheheheheeee...
> {{:-) >
>
> r'Hul
Yep. I was in a hurry when I wrote this and realized my mistake
as I was on the way out the door. I then cleaned it up in my
head thusly:
SojmeyHey Dachoppa' bIH Dangu'laHbe'bogh ngaSbogh yuchmey'e' rur
yIn.
"Life resembles chocolates which contain apparent foods which
you cannot identify before you bite them."
I know that it would be more Klingon in nature if I used {-lu'}
instead of {Da-}, since I don't really mean second person
subject. I really mean indefinite subject. In English, we often
use the second person subject because one doesn't HAVE an
indefinite subject in common useage (heh, heh). Then I ran into
the {-laH}/{-lu'} conflict and decided that it wasn't worth it.
Hmmm.
yuchmey choplu'pa' SojmeyHey'e' ngu'laHbogh pagh ngaSbogh
yuchmey'e' rur yIn.
"Life resembles chocolates which contain apparent foods which
nobody can identify before the chocolates are bitten."
Now, I think we are getting to the root meaning of the original
sentence...
I've made this {-law'}/{-Hey} mistake before, since they both
mean basically the same thing and I find so many more
opportunities to use {-law'} that I forget to switch to {-Hey}
when I go to nouns. HIvqa' veqlargh!
Also, on another topic:
Given TKD's example on page 45 of HeghqangmoHlu'pu' = "It made
him/her willing to die," it seems that HeghqangmoHlu'pu'wI'
would be "thing that made him/her willing to die". Remove
{-qang} and add {-'egh} and one suspects Hegh'eghmoHlu'pu'wI' =
"thing that made him/her kill him/herself".
Some might argue here that you might instead get "thing that
made itself kill him/herself", but that would have major
problems with the grammar, since the subject of causation is
clearly not causing itself. It is causing the action of the
main verb. If the reflexive is to make any sense at all, it
must be applied to the main verb, and the subject of the main
verb is the object of causation.
This is much smoother because we know that, until Okrand
explains something new, we cannot have an object for the action
of a verb modified by {-moH}. The noun in the object's position
is object of the causation and subject of the action of the
verb.
We also, as we currently understand the grammar, cannot have an
object for a reflexive verb (using {-'egh}). This makes these
two dovetail nicely together if the object of the verb with
{-moH} becomes the object of the causation, but the subject of
action of the verb with {-'egh}. So we must apply the {-'egh}
to the subject of the action of the verb and not to the subject
of the causation.
Now, Hegh'eghmoHlu'wI' would mean "thing that makes him/her
kill him/herself". So, perhaps legh'eghmoHlu'wI' would mean
"thing that makes one see ones self". A mirror.
Some days I just feel sneaky.
charghwI'
--
\___
o_/ \
<\__,\
"> | Get a grip.
` |