tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Aug 26 19:18:31 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Date: Sun, 25 Aug 1996 11:23:49 -0700
>From: [email protected] (HoD trI'Qal)
>At 01:52 PM 8/23/96 -0700, Laurel Beckley wrote:
>>I have written a story in tlhIngan Hol. I read it to SuStel, and he
>>suggested I should post it here. English translation will follow. Here
>>it is.
>Okay, let's take a look. {{:)
>>betleHDaj tlhap 'ej tIrDaj pe'lI'.
>While this is grammatically correct, I think you would do better to explain
>the concept of using his betleH to cut the grain as "He uses his betleH in
>order to cut his grain." It might "flow" a bit better:
> tIrDaq pe'meH, betleHDaj lo'lI'.
I have no problem with "betleHDaq tlhap..."; I think the implication is as
clear as it needs to be (the causality isn't that critical anyway). But I
would use "pe'choH" here: he started cutting his grain.
>>ghaH SuvwI.
>You are missing a ' on SuvwI'. I suspect that was a typo. <ghaH> is a
>pronoun meaning "him/her (speech capable)." I think you mis-memorized
><ghoS>, which would mean "approach":
> ghoS SuvwI'
Or chol?
>>>SoH SuvlaHbe'chu'. tIr pe' neH betleHlIj.< jatlh SuvwI'.
>If "you" is the subject of <Suv>, why is <SoH> at the end of the sentence?
>{{:) You also need a verb prefix to match your subject, in this case it
>would be bI-. I'm not sure if <neH> should go after <pe'> here. The way
>you have it, it sounds like "You betleH is merely cutting the grain (as
>opposed to cutting it in two, or chopping it into bits)." If you mean "Your
>betleH is cutting mere grain", then the <neH> should go after <tIr>.
I agree as to the placement of "neH", but when neH follows a noun, it means
"only", not "merely."
>>tIrDaj pe'lI'.
>-taH might be better here than -lI'. -lI' implies that he is going to stop
>sometime soon. -taH implies that it is an on-going process, and it might
>add a bit more "flavour" to your story at this point. It might add more if
>you replace it where it appears a few lines up as well.
jIQochbe'.
>>nom Suv.
>>tugh Heghpu' SuvwI'.
>This is actually "Soon the warrior dies."
Actually, "soon, the warrior has died."
>If you want to say "Soon the warrior is dead" then you use either -pu' or
>-ta'... and this is a case where you would. If you don't understand this,
>please ask... aspect is weird, when you are used to tense... I'm still
>getting used to it!
Er, she DID use -pu'. And it would work okay without too, I think.
>>tIrDaj pe'lI' wIjwI'.
>Again, -taH might be better here... that depends on the impression you want
>to make with your story.
Better still: pe'qa'. He went back to cutting his grain. That's the
*real* use of -qa'.
~mark
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.4, an Emacs/PGP interface
iQB1AwUBMiJax8ppGeTJXWZ9AQEWhwL/XqtsLLWgzVVBb5BE928njWVJQ/CxsMp5
jqwPYIx66cIR5sq4maQUqFl92YNNmxu4qgOePTn7Kn35IiqnfkapuStdQvE7JpSl
NjfQimnDWT7/oReHn5sFtNnERQ+Uyg5n
=rLTt
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----