tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Apr 11 12:22:26 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: My first try at tlhIngan Hol KLBC
- From: Qov <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: My first try at tlhIngan Hol KLBC
- Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1998 12:19:56 -0700
At 09:59 98-04-11 -0700, ghon van HI'rIp wrote:
}Hello Klingonists!
}
}I have followed the discussions on this mailing list for some time now. I am
}impressed by how adequately some of you use the language. Let me introduce
}myself with my first ever message in Klingon.
jIyay'! latlh'e' SoH! Daqbe'choHwI'pu' vItIvqu'.
Wow! Another one! I love delurkers.
}I hope I did not make too
}many mistakes in it (If I did I will certainly hear from you :-) but learn
}from them at the same time :-):
}ghon van HI'rIp pongwIj.
Section 6.3 tells you that there is no verb to be, and that a noun and a
pronoun are simply written together, as in your next sentence, but if you
read on to the end of section 6.3 you see another point. When a noun "is"
another noun, you need to use a pronoun to represent the verb 'to be.'
{ghon van HI'rIp 'oH pongwIj'e'}
Literally, "My name, it is gh.v.H."
}tera'ngan jIH.
}*Holland*Daq jIyIntaH.
Klingon makes a distinction between "live" and "reside at." The verb for
"reside at" (not in TKD) is {Dab}. The place is its direct object.
{*Holland* vIDab.}
}wejmaH jav DIS vIghaj.
In English we "are" the years of our lives. In French we "have" them. In
Russian they are "to" us. In Klingon the idiom is "had been born ... years
ago."
{wejmaH jav ben jIboghpu'}
}Holmey Daj 'e' vIQubmo'
{Holmey Daj} "interesting languages"
{Daj Holmey} "languages are interesting"
Always put a verb before its subject.
}tlhIngan Hol vIghojtaH.
maj.
}jIQapDI' Hap QeDpIn jIH.
{jIQapDI'} is "as soon as I succeed." I can guess what sort of success you
are talking about and speculate that you mean "when I graduate I will be a
matter science officer."
If you mean "when I work," referring to your current job, then the story is
a bit different:
{Qap} means "work" in the sense that a method works, or a car works, not as
in "I work for a living." {jIQap} means "I succeed." The word you need to
describe what you do for an occupation is {vum}.
The suffix {-DI'} means when in the sense of "as soon as," like "when I
succeed," "when I get to Bonn," "when I wake up in the morning." If you
mean when as in "while," the suffix you need is {-vIS}, always used in
conjunction with {-taH}. {jIvumtaHvIS} "when I work," "while I am working."
Occupations themselves are hard to explain. Have a look at {tej},
{chamwI'}, {vu'}, and {Qul} to see if one of those will help you describe
your occupation. "Science officer" gives me the idea you're on a navy
research vessel, or something.
}*bIl 'elbIrt* loSvaDwI'.
You've lost me. "Bill Albert" is pretty clearly a name, but {loS} is either
the number "four" or the verb "wait, wait for." Neither makes much sense
with a type 5 and a type 4 noun suffix on it. Context sugggests you've
misremembered a word and you're going for: {*B.A.* ghaH loDnalwI''e'}?
}vengHomDaq *Vlaardingen* pongta'bogh mayIntaH.
I know you're trying for "we live in a village named Vlaardingen" but
Klingon {pong} isn't as athletic as English "name" for this kind of sentence.
I'd say {*Vlaardingen* vengHom wIDab} "we live in V. village" or "we live
in the village of V."
}*Holland*vo' jIH.
maj.
}*bIl* 'ach *'AmerIqa*vo' ghaH.
I only understood this because I've seen it before. {'ach} can mean
"however" but it can't be placed in the middle of a phrase the same way
English however can. Say:
'ach *America*vo' ghaH *Bill*'e'.
Recognize that construction? :) It's that same pronoun as to be.
Literally: "But as for Bill, he's from America"
It's not necessary, and helps no one, to transliterate names like Bill into
Klingon. The reason it as done that way in the fable you downloaded was for
completeness, as something that was being presented as if for Klingon
consumption. We avoid it on the list, as it just confuses.
}(Back to English)
}
}I am studying Klingon seriously for a few weeks now, using the texts
}downloaded from the KLI's FTP server in conjunction with Dr. Okrand's
}Klingon Dictionary. I started by translating the Fables and observe how the
}language works to express ideas and statements. I have some questions now
}about one of these texts (the *Fox and the Crow*). I will paste the text
}into this message as I downloaded it and insert my questions at the
}appropriate place.
Note that the fables are not canon. They are simply the best efforts,
several years old, of some skilled speakers. We have learned a lot about
the language since then. By all means read them, and continue to question
them before accepting them.
}>juHvo' Soj nIH chalHa'DIbaH
}>SorDaq puvpu' chalHa'DIbaH
}>jIvalchugh Sojvetlh vISop jatlhegh chalHa'DIbaH leghpu'bogh Ha'DIbaH
An animal that had seen the skycreature thought to itself [should be
jatlh'egh], If I am smart I will eat that food.
}>poHvaD Qubpu'
}When I attempted to analyze *poHvaD*, TKD told me that the suffix -vaD means
}'for' 'intended for'.
}implying that the noun to which -vaD is attached to is the beneficiary of
}the action. So far so good but that would mean that *poH* would somehow
}benefit from the *Qub*, which I dare doubt. My question is: is this a
}correct use of the -vaD suffix to denote time durations? If not, would
}something like "poH juSDI' " = "while a period of time passed" be appropriate?
Your analysis is correct. It's not a good use of {-vaD}. You've confused
{-DI'} and {-taH} again, however. The canonical way to say this is:
{qaStaHvIS poH} "for a period of time." Compare with the proverb about the
running man, in the TKD appendix.
}>chalHa'DIbaHDaq nuQneH jatlhneS Ha'DIbaH
}I treated *nuQneH* as a typo for *nuqneH*. If that is not correct, what does
}*nuQneH* mean?
It's a typo for {nuqneH}, and the {-Daq} on {chalHa'DIbaHDaq} is another
example of this writer abusing type 5 noun suffixes (N5) to tranlate English
words instead of meanings. {chalHa'DIbaHvaD} ould work better. The V8
{-neS} is inappropriate here, too. {-neS} indicates politeness to the
addressee, but because the fox doesn't say "said the fox," it doesn't convey
his ingratiating words to the crow.
}>DaHjaj bI'IHneS
That's the right way to use {-neS}.
}>monglI' 'IH law' Hoch 'IH puS
}>tellI' HoS law' Hoch HoS puS
}TKD tells me the *-lI'* suffix is only used for nouns which denote beings
}capable of using language. For other beings and inanimate objects, *-lIj*
}should be used.
}Should'nt this then read *monglIj* and *tellIj* (and further on *nujlIj* and
}*'IHghachlIj*?) or could this be special usage to be extremely polite (as
}the use of the *-neS* suffix in this text indicates)?
Good speculation, but its a simple error. A fairly common one. Some
peopole think that because the body parts are *attached* to a language-using
being that they take the {-lI'} suffix. Good catch.
}>'IHghachlI' vIjatlhlaw' 'ach yab vIjatlhbe'bej
*{'IHghachlI'} is ironically a great ugliness. In between the release of
TKD 2nd edition and some follow-up explanation my Marc Okrand, Klingonists
abused {-ghach} terribly. It is used for making nouns out of suffixed
verbs, and sounds very odd on a bare verb. {naDHa'ghach} - discommendation.
{SuvchoHghach} - the inception of the fight. It should be used fairly rarely.
}I would really appreciate any answers about these issues (preferably in
}English, still, although tlhIngan Hol would provide me with more exercise
}material ;-))
Good questions. yIHaDtaH.
Qov [email protected]
Beginners' Grammarian