tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Apr 06 06:02:16 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Re: worn out (vavwI' loDnI')
According to [email protected]:
>
> "William H. Martin" writes
> >What I suspect is
> >that you are rationalizing like crazy to cover your butt when
> >you are clearly wrong and too stubborn to admit it.
>
> Stubborn, yes. Rationalizing like crazy, no. I had worked on my little
> sentences for three days, and had my own little internal debate, similar to
> the the one that has been going on this week, except my feelings did not get
> hurt. The thing that bugged me and still stings is that many of the comments
> seemed (to me anyway with words like "gibberish", "...that's not Klingon",
> someone even yelled "..that makes no sense AT ALL") to imply that I was just
> throwing something out without much thought.
In all these instances, I am the guilty party. I apologise for
the disrespectful tone. I was weary with having both myself and
ghunchu'wI' explaining things to you, only to have you
expressing what seemed to be your belief that we had simply
misunderstood what you were trying to express when I believed
that we clearly understood what you were trying to express and
we could see how you were failing to express it.
> For three days, I asked myself,
> "Is the verb 'to allow' more like 'to know' and 'to see', both of which take
> the 'e' construction, or is it more like 'to want' which requires a non-'e'
> construction?"
{neH} is a singular exception. Other verbs in any way similar
to {neH} do not get the same grammatical treatment. The verb
{neH} does not omit the pronoun {'e'} because of some aspect of
its meaning. It omits the pronoun because it is {neH} and {neH}
has a special exception to the general rule applying to all
verbs, whether they are a lot like {neH} in meaning or not.
> I chose the non-'e' construction (Big Mistake). So instead
> of making up these excuses on the fly, as I read my mail, these were issues I
> had already thought about.
> Sorry about the punctuation, I hadn't really noticed the periods, just the
> triangle brackets"<>".
For a long time, we debated about punctuation. pIqaD does not
have it, so far as we know. TKD says nothing about it. Some of
us wrote without punctuation, centering each line and placing
one sentence per line. We don't really know much about how
pIqaD would be written, since Okuda won't allow any of the
pIqaD on his sets actually mean anything.
Others argued that we are using a romanized alphabet. We should
use punctuation to add clarity. Later, Okrand published canon
using punctuation. We've uniformly used it ever since.
> Thank you for your pointers on translation and your personal testimonial that
> you had similar problems when you started out.
Actually, I had been on the list entirely too long for me to
use that excuse when I had my little problem with adjectivals...
> Moving on, I have been giving my little sentences some thought and I think
> the first one of the two needs a little work. The sentence in English
> doesn't want the bastards to start wearing you down, I think it is speaking
> about possibility. So the sentences, new and improved, would go something
> like;
> nIQopmoHlaH taHqeqpu' 'e' yIchaw'Qo'.
Dajqu'. This is at first a little strange, but it works. It
shifts the focus toward advice about preparation. This is a
little different from the original, but it is perhaps quite
Klingon in nature, translating to "Don't give the bastards the
ABILITY to wear you down."
> lugh 'e' jItul
Hmmm. Look at that prefix again, remembering that {'e'} is the
OBJECT of {tul}.
> tIm
> (With my luck "to hope" won't take the 'e' construction)
It works fine.
charghwI'
--
\___
o_/ \
<\__,\
"> | Get a grip.
` |