tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon May 27 10:14:03 1996

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: KLBC: warrior

At 06:20 PM 5/23/96 -0700, ghunchu'wI' wrote:
>ghItlh beHwI"av:

>>'etlhwI' vIlo'meH jachHommeywIj vIHoH
>>I use my sword to cause the killing of my puny enemies (who have no
>>language)(or is this "I use my sword, it causes the killing of my puny
>>enemies (who are languageless)")
>
>"I kill my (dumb) minor enemies in order to use my (speaking) sword."
>You're using {-meH} on the wrong verb.  {vIlo'meH} is translated as
>"In order for me to use it."  I also don't see anything here to give
>the idea of "cause the killing" -- {vIHoH} is "I kill them."
>
>The intentional misuse of possessive suffixes doesn't strike me as a
>very effective way to insult someone.  I just see it as a bad use of
>the language; it takes attention away from the meaning of the words.

In the post about the eyebrows, you noted that it was O.K. to use the suffix
in that manner. Is it then solely because I used it as an insult that it is
wrong?

        <...SNIP...>

>>woQ'a'na'vetlh vIghajmeH raghIlj (I'm not sure about this one)
>>I have huge power that causes you (languageless one) to decay (as causes you
>>to rot, only this sounded more powerfull)(I know the suffix {-Ilj} means
>>your, but in the translation I put "you (languageless one) to decay".
>>because I thought it to be nastier)
>
>"Your [decay?] in order that I have that definite great authority."
>"[You?] decay in order that I have that definite great authority."
>The suffix is spelled {-lIj}.  Klingon syllables always start with one
>consonant followed by a single vowel.  ({-oy} is the single exception.}
>However, {ragh} is a verb, and you can't put a noun suffix on it.
>
>If you're trying to use {ragh} as a noun, your sentence has no main verb.
>If you're trying to use it as a verb, you should use the prefix {bI-}.

Looking back I did think that ragh was a noun, but I see your point that it,
the sentence, would have no verb. I'll have to think about what I truly
meant here.

>I don't think you want to talk about "political power" -- "power, strength"
>is {HoS}.
>
>{-vetlh} looks superfluous.  You hadn't mentioned a power before.

I thought that "making people scatter" would make it superfluous to add the
word "power", but you only know what you read.

>{-meH} is not the right tool here.  If you want to say "it causes you
>to decay", you should use {-moH}: {DuraghmoH}.
>
>{DuraghmoHbogh HoS'a'na' vIghaj}.
>
>Note: If you find yourself using {ghaj} and then further describing the
>thing which you have, you might consider rephrasing it to eliminate the
>extra verb.  "I have a definite great power which causes you to decay"
>can often be changed to "my definite great power causes you to decay."
>
>{DuraghmoH HoS'a'na'wIj}.

I thought that I was discribing the power and not the having of such power,
thus making it necessary to add the verb have. Then again I do see now that
I was wrong about the use of {ragh}.

>The use of {pong} as a noun, as you used it, is not in question.

Great, I was a bit worried there.

>>Please look favorably on my first "serious" attempt. (c;{{{
>
>Good attempt.  Thank you very much for including a translation I could refer
>to when deciding how to correct your errors!

I'm glad that you thought it was a good attempt and I hope to be sending you
more sentences, with less mistakes for you to correct. At least I'm learning
from my mistakes.

Qapla'

beHwI"av (Glad to of started the Klingon Language Course.)

Back to archive top level