tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Feb 23 03:50:48 1995

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: bogh SuvwI'

I told my family how I had reported that he was born "two days ago" and that
he would receive a name "in six days" -- and how ~mark "understood perfectly."
They were suitably impressed.  As was I, by the way!  That deduction made my
day, and seeing Krankor's wordplay was a wonderful bonus.

I wrote:
>thlIngan Hol bom QongchoHmoHbogh vIneH. :-)

~mark replied:
>Word-order.  "I want a a Klingon language song that he/she/it puts to
>sleep."  The song is the subject, it comes after the verb.  Maybe consider
>using -meH?

Understood.  I'm just starting to use nouns in relative clauses; it's
yet one more thing to remember to get right.  I'll also have to work on
the different meanings of "for" -- verbs' {-meH} and nouns' {-vaD} don't
seem to be related to each other, but seeing them both called "for" tends
to confuse the issue.  I /think/ it's something like this:
{-vaD} indicates that an object is "receiving" the sentence's action, and
{-meH} indicates that a sentence's action is somehow a "goal".
How's this?
{QongchoHmoHmeH thlIngan Hol bom vIneH.}
"I want a Klingon language song for causing [him/her/it] to fall asleep."

I wrote:
>ben law' *Paramount*Daq HaStaHomvaD vIH thlIngan Data' vav chu'. (*)

~mark replied:
>The aspect doesn't look right.  "Many years ago, a new father had acted (on
>purpose) like movie in Paramount."  Hmm, I guess I don't follow the meaning
>either.  I think you'd want to drop the -ta' altogether, tho.

First, I goofed.  I originally composed it as "he had acted" but decided to
change it and mark it as occurring "many years ago."  I forgot to get rid of
the -ta' when I changed it.

Second, {~mark bImughHa'}.  {lutvaD tlhIngan'e' Data' ghaH}
"He had acted like a Klingon, for a movie."
                     ^^^^^^^  ^^^
And I was so proud of my clarity, too.

I wrote:
>ghuvaD thlIngan bom vIbom 'e' bepchugh wanI' qaw ghaH 'e' vItul.

~mark replied:
>I'm a little lost...  Oh wait, I see.  I think it would make *lots* more
>sense to put the bepchugh at the beginning of the sentence.  Putting it
>after the 'e' is probably wrong, since it makes the 'e' look like the
>object of bep, and a -chugh clause shouldn't intervene between a verb (qaw)
>and its objecty ('e').  I also don't see how to fit wanI' into it.

Obviously my translation is unclear.  I /want/ {bep}'s object to be that {'e'}.
{qaw}'s object is supposed to be {wanI'}.

I started fresh with what I wanted to say, to see if I would come up with a
better translation.  I came up with the same thing I did the first time.

>Maybe:  SaQDI' ghuvaD tlhIngan bom vIbom 'e' qaw 'e' vItul.

No, I'm not talking about the baby's crying.  I want to say:
"I hope he remembers that event if he complains that I sing the baby a Klingon song."
("That event" refers to his having played the role of a Klingon.)
What am I doing wrong?  (I know, I shouldn't try to say something so complex...)

-- ghunchu'wI'

Back to archive top level