tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Jan 04 07:35:53 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: matlholbej
According to [email protected]:
>
> >naDev pawtaH jabbI'IDmey law'. laDwI'vaD law' jabbI'IDlIj
> >laDlu'meH poH poQlu'bogh nI' law' wa' rep nI' puS. jabbI'IDlIj
> >potlh law' Hoch potlh puS 'e' qatlh DaQub? qatlh poH nI' DapoQ?
>
> Hu'tegh, choyajHa'. naDev latlhvaD qeqmeH 'eb vInob vIneH neH. ghItlh tIq
> laDchugh vaj qeqqu'. qeqqu'meH 'ej po'choHmeH qaq ghItlh tIq.
jangpu' nuv 'ar? jIjang jIH neH. tIqtaHvIS jabbI'IDlIj qeq 'Iv?
tIqqu'be'chugh jabbI'IDlIj qeq lI' law' tIqqu'chugh jabbI'IDlIj
qeq lI' puS. DajnIS jabbI'IDmey 'ej law'nIS bIH 'ach tIqnISbe'
bIH. Qu'vamvaD yImatlh, 'ach yIngotlhQo'. yItuv.
> chaq nuv puS chaw'be' poHchaj, 'ach chaHvaD jIlabbe'.
vaj chaq chaHvaD puSqu' bIlab...
> qeqmeH poH pollI'bogh
> nuvvaD jIlab. ghItlhwIj tIq laDmeH latlh, rut chaw'be' poH. 'e' vIyaj 'a ram.
> ramqu', reH tlhIngan Hol law' vIghItlhruptaHmo'.
I'm sure there is a place for every style, so this will
certainly help SOMEBODY. I just feel that when most (and I mean
MOST) folks see several screenfulls of Klingon, especially when
the verbage is obviously padded, as you indicate as you address
your post to every conceivable classification of reader,
individually, then you lose a lot of audience. You lose MOST
audience. Meanwhile, you are obviously talented enough to do
this community more good if you just make your posts a little
more bite-sized. Don't leap to three worded posts... I'm
talking a need for a little balance here. That's all.
Besides, padded speech hardly seems in character with Klingon.
> Just as a side note, I wanted to say some things for which Fed Standard may
> be more appropriate.
>
> First of all, I said in an earlier post something about the Klingon
> vocabulary being {yapHa'}. This is different from {yapbe'}. It is "wrongly
> sufficient" for describing life on Earth, or some of the other topics that
> people on this list want to talk about.
Good point, though I don't fully agree with it. I think that
Klingon is nearer to being wrongly sufficient than it is to
being insufficient, though it is to some degrees both.
Meanwhile, there is an impressive breadth of utility within the
vocabulary given its agglutenative nature.
...
> Of course it all depends on how deep you get into a topic. You can't start
> talking about computers and InterNet in too great a detail, for example,
> without running into serious vocab problems.
Well, it is better for discussing the InterNet than for
discussions of medical conditions, engineering details,
theoretical mathematics, cosmology, microbiology, Christianity,
Satanism, Political theory, Greek Mythology, Sport Climbing,
Musical Critique, Fine Wines or many other topics which require
a vocabulary expanded beyond that of an average American
speaking English.
The white stuff that grows on beeswax candles is called
"bloom", while the green stuff that grows on copper compounds
is called "patina", and the brown stuff that grows on ferrous
metals is "rust", but for your average preteenager, it is all
just "crud". What we have is a generalized vocabulary with some
small expansions into military and computer terms, along with
some terms associated with technologies and beings common to
the Trek environment. That does not make it insufficient or
wrongly sufficient for a wide range of conversation.
It is, however, slow to read and write for most of us. That's
why relatively short messages get more use than long ones.
> But yes, charghwI', it's fine to
> stick names in there. Yes, I am something of a purist, but not *that* much.
>
> Also, just out of curiosity, I've noticed you (charghwI' again), in your
> constructions using the {'e'} topic pronoun, have consistently put the
> adverbial after the {'e'}, e.g. {'e' qatlh DaQub}. Any particular reason for
> that, since we know that {'e'} is considered the object and adverbials come
> before objects. (See TKD 5.4, 6.2.5; "HolQeD" 1:2, pp.4-5) Just wonderin'.
It is probably wrong, though it seemed like the natural thing
to do for legibility. Like the term "gooder" that I used as a
kid, it seemed like a natural way to say what I wanted to say,
but that doesn't make it right.
Basically, the adverbial is associated with the main verb of
the second sentence, so it seemed natural to place it in front
of that verb. The {'e'} comes across as the boundary between
the two sentences -- as much a conjunction as a pronoun -- and
so it felt natural to place the adverbial after the
pseudoconjunction instead of before it. It just takes a couple
extra seconds to figure out that an adverbial is not part of
the first sentence, and for words that could be more than one
part of speech, this can be especially confusing to have the
adverbial before the {'e'}.
Still, I'll try to watch for this and place the adverbials
before the {'e'}.
> Guido
>
charghwI'
--
\___
o_/ \
<\__,\
"> | Get a grip.
` |