tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Oct 13 21:38:47 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: practise
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: KLBC: practise
- Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 00:39:37 -0400 ()
- Priority: NORMAL
On Sat, 11 Oct 1997 21:45:55 -0700 (PDT) Alan Anderson
<[email protected]> wrote:
> ja' muHwI':
> >vIparHa' be'Hom 'IH ghaHmo'.
>
> ja' Qov:
> >Nghgh. I couldn't understand this clearly in Klingon: I thought you
> >were trying to say {be'Hom vIparHa' 'IHmo' ghaH}, then when I went to
> >translate it I realized what you did. It's supposed to say "I like
> >her because she is a beautiful girl." Now I'm not sure whether it's
> >hard to parse, or it's just me. I now understand you are talking
> >about Imran.
But even if it IS supposed to be "I like her because she is a
beautiful girl", it probably simply wrong. The {-mo'} suffix is
not justifiable at the end of a sentence, if this is a noun
suffix, and we have no ruling on it if it is a verb suffix,
though since it is described as acting like the noun suffix, I
personally can't abide by it coming at the end.
be' 'IH ghaHmo' vIparHa'.
I find that a LOT easier to understand. Meanwhile, I agree that
it sounds a lot better as:
'IHmo' be' vIparHa'.
Note that this can be translated two different ways with
identical meanings, depending on which phrase you choose to
attach {be'} to.
> bImobbe', Qov. jIyajchu'pa' wejlogh vIlaDnIS jIH.
'ej wejlogh vIlaDta'DI' vIpartaH...
> Putting the suffix {-mo'} on a pronoun is a bit confusing; is it a verb
> suffix or a noun suffix?
This is where word order can really help. While there are
exceptions, the basic sentence structure in Klingon is to first
set up the environment for the action of the main verb (time
stamps, adverbials and dependant clauses) and then give the
object, verb and subject. We know that some dependent clauses
(-taHvIS} can follow the main verb, though I personally see this
as a stylistic impurity. The sentences simply work better if you
save the main action for last.
> Anytime an adjectival verb is used as the object of a "to be" sentence,
> it seems a bit contrived anyway. {'IH be'Hom} just sounds a lot better
> to me than {be'Hom 'IH ghaH}.
jIQochbe'bej!
> -- ghunchu'wI'
>
>
charghwI'