tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Sep 29 20:09:59 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC :juHmaj
- From: Qov <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: KLBC :juHmaj
- Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 20:09:41 -0700
lab jeyD:
>Qov wrote:
>>
>>> 'ej DaH machmo' De'wI'maj, jIQeH.
>> De'wI' mach Dapar'a'? qatlh?
> oops--
> 'ej DaH machmo' De'wI'maj pa', jIQeH.
A comment: I would translate {De'wI'maj pa'} as "our computer's room"
or "the room of our computer." If I wanted to write "Our computer
room" or "our room of the computer" I would say {De'wI' pa'maj}. The
room is yours and the computer is yours too. I just think that
{De'wI' pa'maj} sounds more natural. I don't know what would sound
more natural to a Klingon.
> juHmaj choHta' qorDu'wIj.
> pa'mey tam De'wI'maj pa', be'nI'wI' pa' je.
This translates as: "Our computer's room and my sister's room
exchanged rooms." I might say instead {De'wI'maj pa' be'nI'wI' pa' je
DItam} "We exchanged our computer's room and my sister's room" or
{De'wI'maj pa' be'nI'wI' pa' je lutamlu'} "... were exchanged."
I can't guarantee that either is correct, as we don't really know how
{tam} works. I won't say that your way is wrong, but it does seem
redundant in Klingon and in English.
> DaH be'nI'wI' pa' tIn law pa'wIj tIn puS,
> 'ej DaH mach De'wI'maj pa'.
> machmo' De'wI'maj pa' 'ej QapHa'mo' De'wI'maj 'e' jIQub, jIQeH.
When using {'e'}, the first sentence is the object of the second
sentence, so the verb of the second sentence must take a third person
singular object prefix: {'e' vIQub}.
There's another small problem here, let me show your sentence in
symbols to explain it. You're angry because of two things, X and Y.
{X-mo' 'ej Y-mo' jIQeH} This is a perfectly valid construction if X
and Y are both valid sentences. {-mo'} of course goes on the verb of
each sentence. Your X is {mach De'wI'maj pa'} - no problem there.
Your Y seems to be {QapHa' De'wI'maj 'e' vIQub}: "I think the
computer malfunctions." To make this into "because I think the
computer malfunctions," place the {-mo'} on {Qub}, not {QapHa'}. The
part before {'e'} has to be a complete sentence, and as soon as you
put a V9 suffix other than {-jaj} on the verb, it stops being a
complete sentence. Your other alternative is to say {QapHa'law'mo'
De'wI'maj} "because our computer apparently malfunctions" and skip
the {'e' vIQub} altogether. That all make sense? I'll let anyone
follow up and ask, if it doesn't, rather than making this still
longer.
> <How do you say 'really' angry?>
That's exactly what the verb rover {-qu'} is for. Re-read the
section on rovers in TKD. {jIQeHqu'} "I'm really angry"
> wa'Hu' juHmaj choHmo' qorDu'wIj, pa'wIjDaq
> jIghoSlaHbe'
Have a look at the exception for {ghoS} in the section on {-Daq}.
You've said "I couldn't approach towards my room." Take off the
{-Daq} and make {pa'wIj} the direct object of {ghoS} -- making it
{vIghoS}.
> 'ej be'nI'wI' pa'Daq jIQong.
> be'nI'wI' pa'Daq jIQongmo' 'ej wa'Hu' <Fek'lhr's Fury>Daq
> jIghoSta'mo',
> tlhInganpu' wIja'chuq,
We don't think you can use {ja'chuq} that way. See, it looks an
awful lot like a reflexive verb "tell one another," made from {ja' +
-chuq}. If it is, then we can probably only say {maja'chuq} and not
give it an object. If it could take an object, you would have to say
{?DIja'chuq} because the object {tlhInganpu'} is plural. What we
usually do, is say something like: {maja'chuqtaHvIS tlhInganpu'
DIqel}
> <how do you say talked 'a lot'>
Now that you've re-read the section on {-qu'} you know this one.
Same way: {majatlh} - "we talked" {majatlhqu'} - "we talked a lot"
Also {majatlhqu'taH} - "we kept on talking a lot"
> 'ej DaH tlhIngan Hol parHa'choH be'nI'wI'!!!!! tlhIngan
> Hol ghojmeH, be'nI'wI' vIghojmoH.
majQa'. bInenba'. pa' nIv Suq be'nI'lI' 'ach bIjIjqangtaH.
be'nI'lI' SoH je SaqIHmeH tugh juHwIjDaq qepHom vIlopnIS.
pov lutlIj. qechmey DaQIjlaHmeH qechmey DanapmoHta'. bIpo'choH.
peHaj tera'nganpu'! *Vancouver*Daq tlhIngan Hol jatlhqu'lu'!
SKI: Fear. jeyD and sister live in the Vancouver area, with Qov.
Qov [email protected]
Beginners' Grammarian