tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Nov 22 22:44:11 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC:2 items
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: KLBC:2 items
- Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 11:53:39 -0500 ()
- Priority: NORMAL
On Thu, 21 Nov 1996 20:40:04 -0800 "Mark E. Shoulson"
<[email protected]> wrote:
...
> >>Also, you have used a question word as part of a sentence-as-object statement.
> >> Again, some people like to do this, and I honestly cannot fathom the logic
> >>behind it, except that it copies English.
> >
> >I think I was thinking something like:
> >"what is funny?", we know it.
> >But I understand what you are saying. This is what happens when someone
> >writes in a hurry. (It ends up being 'street slang' klingon)
>
> I tend to use the question-word in SAO constructions, though I readily
> admit it is not canon nor attested.
Nor is it necessary. That is my primary objection to it. I find
it to be, like the question word "which", something I don't
need. I do not find it difficult to work around the absence of
using a question as the object of another verb.
qechmey tlhaQ DIghovlaH.
> And I use it for the reason above, NOT
> because of any mirroring of English (in fact, I try to punctuate it as a
> question before the 'e' to make that clearer). "nughoS 'Iv? 'e' vISovbe'":
nughoSbogh nuv vIghovbe'. vIngu'laHbe'.
> who's approaching us? I don't know that. It sometimes works better than
> others, but I tentatively like it. That's me, though, not Okrand. (Note
> one break from English that it yields, though: "I don't know if she's died"
> gets translated not with -chugh but with -'a': "Heghpu''a'? 'e' vISovbe'")
Heghpu' 'e' vISovbe'.
Heghlaw' neH.
Heghbejbe'.
> Note also that charghwI' will likely make good points about casting things
> more actively.
Heh, heh, heh...
I've become predictable.
> >---------------------------------------
> >>Here's how I'd say the whole first bit in Klingon:
> >>
> >>tlhIngan maH! tlhaQbogh lut law' DISovbej jay'!
> >>We are Klingons! Of course we know lots of funny stories! [explitive not
> >>translated :) ]
majQa'!
> >Certainly better (That's why you're the BG); but I'm not sure if it's quite
> >what I was expressing. Maybe something like:
> >tlhaQchugh lut 'e' wISovbej jay'
> >we certainly know if a story is funny!
That is ungrammatical, since the mu'tlheghqoq to which {'e'}
points is not a complete sentence. You can drop the {'e'}
completely and this sentence works for me. A {vaj} is optional
and would be placed where you put {'e'}.
> Heh. And here I'd use -'a' again. :) Or maybe no 'e': if a story's funny,
> we know it.
I think you've had a minor lapse in your normal synapses.
Perhaps you might choose to revisit these suggestions.
> ~mark
charghwI'