tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Aug 25 10:30:10 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: sources
- From: [email protected] (HoD trI'Qal)
- Subject: Re: KLBC: sources
- Date: Sun, 25 Aug 1996 13:30:49 -0400
At 09:09 PM 8/22/96 -0700, Jeffrey Stimac wrote:
>HoD trI'Qal wrote:
>
>> I really hope that you read my "Message for beginners" I posted last night;
>> it tells you who I am, and why I am replying to your post. If not, please
>> say so, and I will email you a private copy.
>
>'oH qalaDta'.
>I read it.
Actually, you said "I read you it", or perhaps, "I read it for you".
Whenever you used a verb prefix, it has to match both the subject of your
verb, adn your object. The subject is whatever is the answer to "Who/what
is <verb>ing?" In this case, "Who is reading?". Your subject is referring
to yourself, or "I" (from your point of view). The object must answer the
question "Who/what is <subject> <verb>ing?" In this case: "what am I
reading?" The answer: "it" (referring to my post with info for beginners).
So, your verb prefix has to have a subject of "I" and an object of "it"...
if you match up those columns on the prefix chart on page 33 of your Klingon
Dictionary, you get the verb prefix vI- (you used qa-, which means "I" for
the subject, and "you" for the object). That gives:
'oH vIlaDta'.
Please note that when you have a pronoun for the subject or object, putting
the pronoun in is optional... using it is grammatically correct, but you
could have simply dropped the <'oH>, since it is "included" in the verb prefix:
vIlaDta'.
Also note that using -ta' implies that you read it on purpose, which (I
hope!) is a GOOD use of -ta' instead of -pu' here! majQa'!
>vay' qayajHa', pagh net Hoch gheDra' yItlhob'e'? {{8^D
>Did I miss something, or do you ask that of all your prey? :-)
As usual, I will adress your grammar first, before I answer your question. {{:)
Using <yajHa'> for "to miss" was a very good re-casting! Very nice!
Unfortunately, once again, you have used the wrong verb prefix.
Fortunately, you are *consistent* in your error... you used qa- again, when
it should have been vI-, for the same reasons I stated above. If you don't
see why it should be <vay' vIyajHa'> instead of <vay' qayajHa'> PLEASE say
so! Also, "Did I miss something?" is a question. You need to have the
question-suffix on it:
vay' vIyajHa''a'
OR, you can replace <vay'> with <nuq>, for "What did I miss?", although that
changed your original meaning from asking DID you miss something to "I know
I missed something... what was it?":
nuq vIyajHa'?
Using one of the question words (who, what, where, when, why, how: 'Iv,
nuq, nuqDaq, ghorgh, qatlh, chay') automatically make your sentence a
question, and so do not require -'a' on the end.
I really couldn't make heads or tails out of the rest... <pagh> was correct,
and in the correct location, although this is one of the times you might
have wanted to use <qoj> instead ("and/or", instead of just "or").
<net> should not be there at all. If you want to refer back to a previous
sentence, you generally use <'e'>, which is a word, a pronoun--not the noun
suffix. <net> followed by a verb means "someone/thin <verbs> that" where
"that" is referring to the previous sentence. The best example of this I
can think of is <net Sov>, which I often use to mean something along the
lines of "Everyone knows that!". It literally means "someone knows that",
though.
In otherwords, you can't have a subject if you use <net>, because it is
already included for you. You are asking me "Do you always ask that?". The
subject here is "you" (referring to me), so you want to use <'e'>:
pagh 'e' Hoch gheDra' yItlhob'e'
Once you have <'e'> or <net> in there, you are dealing with a
sentence-as-object construction, which are a more advanced topic... so there
is absolutely no shame in mangling this sentence. {{:) First, I'd like to
point you to pages 65-67 of your Klingon Dictionary, which explain the
concept you are trying to express. What you are *really* trying to say
here, is "Do you ask <that previous sentence> to all your victims?" The
<'e'> means <that previous sentence> (as does <net>, as you realized... you
just used the wrong wone for this situation, that's all. Very nice job for
even realizing that it was one of those two!). The rest of your sentence
should be exactly the same, only with <'e'> as the direct object of your
verb... which means it must be the last thing before the verb. You have it
as the first thing in the sentence, so it really should be:
pagh Hoch gheDra' 'e' yItlhob'e'
Okay, now let's look at the verb itself. You have the right verb <tlhob>,
"to ask", but you have the wrong prefix again. {{:) What you have there is
an imperative prefix; it is a COMMAND: "You! Ask that to all your
victims!". You really just need a regular verb prefix (page 33 again. {{:)
). In this case, the subjectof the verb is "you" (which is referring to me
again), and the object is "that previous subject"... which is an "it".
So... looking on the chart, you should have used Da-:
pagh Hoch gheDra' 'e' Datlhob'e'
The only time you use the imperative prefixes on page 34 is when you are
commanding someone.
It looks like your biggest current problem so far are verb prefixes. I'd
recommend re-reading the section on pages 32-34 for the non-impertive
prefixes, and page 34-35 for the imperatives... and if you still don't
understand... please don't hesitate to ask!
The next step is to get the "question" verb suffix on your sentence, to make
it a question. It looks like you put -'e' on there, instead of -'a', which
could have been a typo, a mis-memorization of -'a', or a confusion between
<'e'> and the noun suffix -'e'. Without knowing what you were thinking, all
I can tell you is that what you have is incorrect, and it SHOULD be -'a':
pagh Hoch gheDra' 'e' Datlhob'a'
Finally, there is the "of all your victims" phrase. <Hoch> is in the right
place, if I remember my new canon right. {{:) <ngeD> is a new word out of
TKW, but you should have used -lI' instead of -ra'... -ra' means "you,
plural" in the sense that the "victims" belong to more than one person, not
that there are multiple victims. To show there are multiple victims, you
want to put on the plural suffix (for beings capable of speech) -pu':
pagh Hoch gheDpu'lI' 'e' Datlhob'a'
There is a difference between the pluralizing suffixes, and the "your"
(plural) suffixes. Here are a few exaples:
jup a friend
juppu' friends
jupwI' my friend
juppu'wI' my friends
juplI' your friend (just one person's friend... Ie, just
you, and not you and everyone else on the list)
juppu'lI' your friends. (just YOUR friends... not the friends
of everyone else on the list)
jupra' the friend of all of you (the friend of multiple
people on the list... maybe even a friend of the
entire list)
juppu'ra' friends of all of you (multiple people who are all
happen to be friends of all of you, who happen to
be on the list)
I included the examples with -wI' for comparison... does this make the
difference between -lI' and -ra' clearer? If not, please say so! Ask... I
am here to answer questions...
Finally, I will do you the honour of answering your question in the same
language you honoured yourself by using:
ghobe'.
ghojwI'wI' wa'DIch SoHpu'mo', qatlhobneS neH.
>> At 09:50 PM 8/20/96 -0700, Jeffrey Stimac wrote:
>> >qaSuj'a'
>> >Am I bothering you?
>>
>> ..and this is a very *nice* first sentence! Short, simple... and only one
>> possible error, depending on meaning...
>
>yuDHa' jIH, tlhIngan Hol mu'ghom mu'tlhegh net jIlelta''e'
>To be honest, I just copied that sentence from TKD.
Actaully, after working my way through your last sentence, I think I am
beginning to see what you are doing. Unfortunately, you are still making
errors... fortunately, they look like they are the *same* errors, which
means you are consistent... Let's work our way through this one, too.
First, you are still having prefix problems. Anytime you have have a
pronoun (in this case, <jIH>) in a subject or object position, you REALLY
have to watch to make sure that your verb prefix matches it. In this case,
you didn't even have ANYTHING on yuDHa', which means you would have had a
subject of "he/she/it" or even "them". Since you have the <jIH> there, you
need to use a verb prefix which matches it. In this case, you have the
subject, "I"... now, what's the object? "I am honest what?" Wait a minute!
That makes no sense! You can't have a "what" on "I am honest", right?
Right! That means you don't HAVE an object, which is what the "None" column
on the chart is for... your verb prefix should mean "I, no object"... which
is jI-. Once you have that, the <jIH> is optional:
jIyuDHa'; tlhIngan Hol mu'ghom mu'tlhegh net jIlelta''e'
In English, we often say "to be honest" to mean "I want to be honest" or,
"in order that I remain honest" or "I need to be honest". Since <jIyuDHa'>
is a sentence in and of itself in Klingon, I would have my punctuation match
it. I might also tack on -nIS ("need") to emphacize the fact that I am
being honest, although your sentence is perfectly correct without it.
Once again, the second part of your sentence appears to be a bit mangled.
Once again, you have mis-used <net>, only this time, you seem to be using it
to mean "that sentence". We have a set of noun suffixes to say "this/that":
they are on pages 25 and 26. The one you want is -vetlh, "that":
<mu'tlheghvetlh>. You also have the wrong verb prefix again. This time,
you used jI-, instead of vI-. Since I already explained a couple of times
how to get the right verb prefix, I will not go into anymore detail why it
should be vI-. If you still don't understand, PLEASE ASK!!!!
jIyuDHa'; tlhIngan Hol mu'ghom mu'tlheghvetlh vIlelta''e'
I really don't think <lel> is the right word here. To "get a phrase out of"
a book sounds almost idomatic to me. I'm not sure about that, though. I
would use <tu'>, "to find" instead. You also used -'e' on here again. -'e'
is a NOUN suffix, and <lel> is a verb. You can't put noun suffixes on a
verb. {{:) This may be confusion between <'e'>, the sentence-as-object
pronoun and -'e' the type-5 noun suffix, though. I can't tell unless you
tell me, though. {{:( In either case, -'e' should not be on <lel>. Putting
these changes together, we get:
jIyuDHa'; tlhIngan Hol mu'ghom mu'tlheghvetlh vItu'ta'
Please note that -ta' implies that you found it on purpose. You are saying
that you *intentionally* got the sentence from TKD. If you didn't do it on
purpose, you would want to replace the -ta' with -pu'. Since I don't know
what your intention was, I will leave the -ta'. {{:)
Finally, you just have "Klingon Dictionary" hanging out there all by itself.
As it stands, this sentence means: "I found that sentence of the Klingon
Dictionary". Somehow, I don't think that's *quite* what you mean. {{:)
What you need to do is show that the sentence came *from* the Klingon
Dictionary... or in this case is found *in* the dictionary. This is a great
use for the locative suffix -Daq. -Daq has a number of meanings...
depending on context, it can mean "in", "at", or "to". In this case, you
can use it to mean "in", as you found this "in" the Klingon Dictionary. You
can find a description of -Daq on page 27 and 28 of your KD, along with
-vo', which means "from". Fortunately, you already have "Klingon
Dictionary" in the right place, which is at the FRONT of the sentence:
jIyuDHa'; tlhIngan Hol mu'ghomDaq mu'tlheghvetlh vItu'ta'
And my response:
wejpuH.
mutlha'law' Do'Ha'ghachvam rap.
mu'tlheghraj QaQ vIlegh, 'ej vInaDchu'
'ej vaj <<tlhIngan mu'ghomlIjDaq vItu'pu'>> pagh <<"The Klingon Way"Daq
vItu'pu'>>
bojang.
wejpuH.
>Soh qajatlhpu' jIH (Sohna').
>I was speaking to you (like just you).
First of all, you have two typos: ?Soh? should be <SoH>. Capitalization
may not seem so important, but it is when you have q and Q which have two
totally different meanings, or H which might be confused for the h in tlh or
gh if you typo it bad enough. Please make sure that letters which SHOULD be
capitalized, ARE. {{:)
What's really cool, is despite your earlier problems with prefixes, you got
it RIGHT here! qa- is the right prefix for "I" subject, "you" (singlur)
object! YAY!!!!!
Again, once you have that verb prefix there, the SoH and jIH are not
required (some people use the pronouns only for emphasis or clarity, but
there is nothing incorrect about having them there). <SoHna'> is an
interesting way to say "just you". It litterally means "the definite you
(singluar)". I am not going to say it is incorrect, but it might have been
difficult to understand without the English translation. There IS a word to
say "only", <neH>. It follows the noun it is modifying. You could have
said <SoH neH>, and been a bit clearer.
This is a MUCH better sentence (grammatically) than some of your previous
attempts, possibly because it is a simpler concept.
*** DEBATE ALERT ***
Some might say that you cannot have the person to whom you are speaking be
the Direct Object of your sentence, and that you would have to say <SoHvaD
jIjatlh>. Since (as far as I know) this is still under debate, I will
accept EITHER as correct, since the whole idea of the BG is just to correct
basic grammar, not re-hash old debates. {{:)
Now, my response:
maj!
jIHvaD neH bIjatlhta'mo', lughqu' mu'tlheghlIj.
>> Owie. The first one was really nice... {{:)
>
>'oH *slaughtered* jIH, lug'e'?
>I slaughtered it, right?
Another typo... ?lug? should probably be <lugh>. Please watch these; typos
are easy to make, and hard for new students to catch, but it is a good
practice to go over your own attempts before mailing them. I think if you
were to look up ?lug?, you would have quickly realized that it should have
been <lugh>, and fixed it (especially since Klingon has no "g" by itself). {{:)
Even though you are dropping "slaughtered" into the middle of the senetence,
it STILL has to match the rest of the grammar rules. You need to have a
prefix on that verb. I will tell you that it needs to be vI-, but again, if
you don't understand how I got it, please ask. You could have translated
"slaughtered" as "to clearly destroy". Just because a word isn't in the
dictionary, that doesn't mean we can't express the concept! "To destroy" is
<Qaw'>, and to indicate that it was "clearly" done, you can put the type 6
suffix -chu' on it: <Qaw'chu'>. And again, once you have the verb prefix
right, the pronouns are an *option* (I generally drop them for brevity):
vIQaw'chu', lugh'e'
Finally, you have -'e' instead of -'a':
vIQaw'chu', lugh'a'
Please note that there was nothing wrong with using "slaughtered" in there;
I just gave the Klingon words here, so you can see what it looks like
translated. Please also note, as a stylistic point, that while I do not
believe that using <lugh'a'> this way is incorrect, we DO have the example
from the adendum of <qar'a'> (page 179--please note that the ?gar'a'? in the
body of the text is a typo!), used this exact same way.
Again, this sentence was MUCH better than some of your longer attempts. majQa'!
Now, my response:
chaq...
'ach tlhIngan Hol DaghojmeH, tlhIngan Hol DajatlhnISqu'.
tlhIngan Hol DaghItlhchugh, chaq bIQagh.
bIQaghchugh, vaj qalughmoHbej.
qalughmoHchugh, vaj chaq tugh bIQaghbe'.
'ach, tlhIngan Hol DaghItlhbe'chugh, chay' qalughmoH?
qalughmoHlaHbe'ba'!
qalughmoHlaHbe'chugh, not bIlughchoH
'ej bIQaghtaH.
vaj batlh HIghItlh!
bIlughqu' vIneHqu'!
vaj yInIDqa', 'ej qaQaH!
>I have TKD, CK, PK, TKW, KCD, and Klingon Words Not in TKD (a.k.a.
>KWNITKD??).
>I do not have HolQed, the newsletter put out by KLI but I figure the
>KWNITKD
>will hedge against anything I might miss. Having this many resources
>should
>result in better sentences.
Well, yes and no. We HAVE had some new grammar rules/clarifications come
out in HolQeD, the most noticable of which (to my mind) was the use of the
type 9 verb suffix, -ghach. Marc Okrand has been incredibly patient with
our requests and has been kind enough to respond to a number of them,
usually via HolQeD and the KLI. I normally try to be as "imparitial" as
possible as BG, but I am going to throw in what some may see as a blatent
push for the KLI here: I personally have found the issues of HolQeD to be
invaluable, not just for new vocab and grammar, but for keeping in touch
with the rest of the Klingon-speaking community... especially those who
don't have Internet access. The subscription price of $15/year is very
reasonable, and the back issues are only $4.00 each. Some of the back
issues have some information you might want... and possibly might *need* {{:).
*end push for the KLI*
>I'm sorry if it takes me some time before I
>am
>any good at this.
You are speaking the language, and you are (I hope) learning. THAT is what
is important here! To be perfectly honest, I don't care if it takes you
YEARS to learn... if you want to learn to speak Klingon, and you keep
sending me mail, I will keep correcting it, hopefully in a way you can
understand, and see your errors and what it SHOULD be, and learn from you
mistakes.
You may or may not believe this, but there was a time when I wan't very good
at the language, either. My old posts are still in the list archive, I am
sure... there was a particular string on the "Top 10 Klingn Bumper Stickers"
where I did just about *everything* wrong conceivable.
Someday, I will compile those back together, and re-send them, or send them
selectively to students who feel they will never learn... because although I
am now a bit of embarrassed by some of what I wrote in there, I did write
them, and I certainly learned from them (as evidenced by the later posts in
the thread).. and if other people can learn from my mistakes, I will happily
embarrass myself yet again for their benfit! (Geez... I REALLY must be
crazy to do THAT! {{:) )
>> I hope this rather lengthy response helps you...
>
>DIch'a'!
>Definitely!
Ooh... that's a nice translation! <DIchna'> would've worked, too.
>> I think I remember seeing something saying that there is a canon example
>> that ranks should come *after* the name... i.e., qarghan HoD.
>>
>> Don't feel bad; I often call myself HoD trI'Qal still. {{:/
>
>I appreciate your comment. I'll fix my sig file.
qay'be'.
>> >yIlop! wa'leS chaq maHegh!
>> >Translated from Klingon: Celebrate! Tomorrow we may die!
>>
>> Wow! That was absolutely perfect! Of course, knowing my luch, that is
>> right out of _The_Klingon_Way_... {{:/
>
>bIlughbe'
>You are right.
OOPS. Your English says one thing, but the Klingon says another! <bIlugh>
is "you are right", but -be' negates that, and makes it "you are *not*
right" (emphasis added). I think you wanted just <bIlugh>, right? {{:)
>> --trI'Qal (my name doesn't mean anything, so don't look it up. {{:) )
>
>So it would be considered a "proper name" right?
Exactly. <trI'Qal> is a name I made up myself. There is a rather long
story where that came from...
>Jeff Stimac
>qarghan HoD
maj. {{:)
--tQ
Translations:
------------
No.
I asked only you, your honour, because you were my first student.
Wonderful.
This same misfortune seems to be following me.
I see (all of) your good sentences, and I praise them to the skies.
And then, you say "I found it in the KD" or "I found it in TKW"
Just wonderful.
Good!
Because you spoke only to me, your sentence is *right*.
Perhaps..
But in order for you to learn Klingon, you *must* speak it.
If you write Klingon, you might make some mistakes.
If you make mistakes, you know I will correct you.
If I correct you, then perhaps soon you will not make mistakes.
But, if you don't write Klingon, how can I correct you?
I can't!
If I can't correct you, you will never become right
and you will always be making mistakes.
So write me with honour!
I want you to be right!
So, try again, and I will help you!
No problem.
---
HoD trI'Qal, tlhIngan wo' Duj lIy So' ra'wI'
Captain T'rkal, Commander IKV Hidden Comet
Klingon speaker and net junkie!
HaghtaHbogh tlhIngan yIvoqQo'! toH... qatlh HaghtaH Qanqor HoD???
monlI'bogh tlhInganbe' yIvoqQo'! SoHvaD monlI' trI'Qal...