tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Aug 06 12:57:02 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: Trouble with {-moH} again... was Re: pong duj (again)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Date: Mon, 5 Aug 1996 09:29:04 -0700
>From: [email protected]
>At 12:52 PM 31/7/96 -0700, ~mark wrote:
>As answer to the statements made by ~mark, I wanted to say some tlhIngan
>Hol. I still have trouble with the type 4 suffix {-moH} "cause".
>>I'm not an expert, but I recall several instances of named Klingon ships.
>>Riker served aboard a ship called the "pagh" (coincidental homophony with
>>"nothing"? Intentional meaning? who knows);
>HIja'
>{pagh} vIQubmoH, 'aH 'oH {pagh} ({pagh} causes me to think it's paraphernalia)
Hrm. I don't follow. "{pagh} vIQubmoH" means "I cause {pagh}" to think.
If you want "{pagh} makes me think", then you need "muQubmoH {pagh}." We
also have a problem of double-objects, since you have {pagh} causing you to
think something. You are the object of "cause" and the something is the
object of "think", which can be tricky to deal with in Klingon in some
cases. You can try splitting the -moH off by using "qaSmoH": "'aH 'oH
{pagh}'e' 'e' vIQub 'e' qaSmoH {pagh}" which is admittedly ugly. You can
also try "{pagh}mo', 'aH 'oH {pagh}'e' 'e' vIQub" (with possible word-order
reshufflings). It's not a trivial thing to do. But remember which is
subject and which is object, and also remember that objects in English
aren't always objects in Klingon ("He saw me eat the pie" does NOT have
"mulegh" anywhere, since "me" is nowhere the object of "legh" in the
Klingon translation: chab vISop 'e' legh).
As to the *content*, that too puzzles me. Why does the name {pagh}
(meaning "zero" or "nothing" in Klingon) make you think it means
"paraphernalia"? Or that the ship is paraphernalia? I suppose in a sense
it is, since ships are equipment... I'm sort of lost here.
>>Gowron's ship is called the
>>bortaS in the CD-ROM and maybe elsewhere.
>HIja'
>{bortaS}'e' DaSov DuleghmoH <ST> (ST causes you to know the {bortaS})
Order is better, but you have two main verbs here. "{bortaS} DuSovmoH
<ST>" would work (the double-object problem remains, but seems to be
handled in a way consistent with canon). Or "<ST>mo' {bortaS} DaSov" (or
even Sovlu'). I don't see where {legh} comes in here.
>gowron 'oH, bortaSDaj'e' (It is Gowron, the Bortas is his)
>(How would one say that the Bortas belongs to Gowron??? Would this be
>correct???)
I've wished for a good "belongs to" as well. Until we have one, this case
can be handled with:
ghawran Duj 'oH {bortaS}'e'. The Bortas is Gowron's ship.
~mark
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.4, an Emacs/PGP interface
iQB1AwUBMgejcsppGeTJXWZ9AQF8pwL7BVnr/GzV+mP4pM95YrbGoMTnumnIvMF2
y1UAhjBLfG84bn5a+WsfQl519Lv8fx6JPdaCghU8rGJiLCVTxFntmlRl9yRAS05T
852mTekuvm/2bq8xEZ/JEl+Qkg5zD+hE
=coyv
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----