tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Jun 08 06:50:57 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: charghwI''s Coffee
Soqra'tIS vIghojmoH mutlhob Soqra'tIS.
According to [email protected]:
>
> Wed, 7 Jun 1995 14:04:22 -0400 ghItlhta' charghwI':
>
> >According to [email protected]:
>
> *Soqra'tIS 'oH ponglIj'e'. yIlo'qu' yIHeghbej joq petaQ, <*pthew*>.
You should be saying {Soqra'tIS 'oH pongwIj'e'.}
^
As it is, you are telling me that MY name is Socrates.
> (Did that sound tlhIngan enough?? >}};-)
HIja'. batlh bIjatlh!
> >> Wed, 7 Jun 1995 09:17:51 -0400 ghItlhta' charghwI':
> >>
> >> >yuchqa'vIn vIneH.
> >>
> >> yuchqa'vIn'a'
> >> *gasp*
> >> ghojmoqpu'vaD tlhutlhbej 'e'
This one is a mess. {'e'} can only be used as the object of one
verb, representing a whole other sentence. Here, it is placed
in the position of subject and it refers to a single noun. I
think what you really wanted to say was:
yuchqa'vIn'a' tlhutlhqang ghojmoqpu' neH!
"Only nannies are willing to drink mocha!"
The pronoun {'e'} is only useful for sentence-as-object
constructions. In English, it tends to look like [subjectnoun1
verb1s that subjectnoun2 verb2s objectnoun.] Something like, "I
said that you eat tribbles." In this case, it comes out:
yIHmey DaSop 'e' vIjatlh.
The think to note here is that in English, I was using an
indirect quotation, while in Klingon, they use only direct
quotation, so the more accurate translation of the Klingon is:
I said, "You eat tribbles."
In this case, it doesn't make any difference whether you are
using direct or indirect quotation, but if the English had
been, "I told him that he eats tribbles," the Klingon would be:
yIHmey DaSop 'e' vIjatlh.
Notice that the person on that first verb is different. That's
because "I told him that he eats tribbles," is indirect
quotation, while the Klingon would be expressed as, "I told
him, 'You eat tribbles.'" That's the same thing being said as a
direct quotation.
Does this make sense?
> >> neghqa'vIn vImaSqu'
jIvemmeH 'ej jIqImmeH QaH vIpoQnISbe' 'e' vImaSqu'. tlhutlhwI'
pujmoH qa'vIn 'e' vIHar.
> >> qa'vIn watlhtaH 'e'
> >> }};-)
Here, you are again using {'e'} as subject. You simply can't do
that. Period. You might use {'oH} or you might repeat the noun
for clarity. TKD gives precident for repeating the noun as well
as for using the pronoun or even just using the implied subject
in the prefix. The only thing you CAN'T do is use {'e'} or
{net}. Those pronouns work only as objects of verbs, while they
represent preceeding sentences. Think of {net} as {'e'} when
the second verb's subject is indefinite. You never use {'e'} as
the object of a verb which uses {-lu'}. You would instead use
{net} and omit the {-lu'}.
> >jabbI'IDlIj vIvuv, 'ach qabqu' pabqoqlIj.
>
> qatlho'neS, *charghwI', 'ach pabqoqlIj vIghajbe'qu'.
You don't have my so-called grammar?
> >chay' <'e'> Dalo'nIS 'e' Dayajbe'law'.
>
> teH. HIghojmoH.
DungDaq vInIDta'.
> >'ej yuchqa'vIn vItlhutlh vIneH vIjatlhpu'be'.
>
> <vIjatlhpu'be'> vIyajbe'.
"I have not said it." [It has not occurred that I said it.] It
is valid to apply the negation to the perfective instead of to
the verb root. The difference in meaning is subtle and not all
that important. {vIjatlhbe'pu'} would have meant, "I have not
said it." [It has occurred that I did not say it.]
Applying the negation to the perfective in this case seems
clearer. Imagine that at three events I had an opportunity to
say it and I said it at two of those three events. I could say
that it occurred that I did not say it (since once this was
true, out of three opportunities), but I could not say that it
had not occurred that I had said it, since I had said it twice.
Got it?
> >yuchqa'vIn tujqu'Daq yIH vIchaghqa' vIneH.
> >HeghDI' yIH vISopmeH QaQqu'.
> >[crunchy]bogh joj ngaS [sweet]bogh Hur. {{:)>
>
> hee hee hee. bIqejchu'taH.
bIrDI' bortaS QaQ nay' 'ach tujqu'DI' qa'vIn QaQ yIH.
{{:)>
> Soqra'tIS [email protected]
charghwI'
--
\___
o_/ \
<\__,\
"> | Get a grip.
` |