tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Apr 14 12:19:52 1998

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: My first try at tlhIngan Hol KLBC

Thanx Qov (and others!) for the nice and instructive replies to my first
message!



>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.

Yeah, lurking isn't that much fun. Something tells me those days are over...:-)
>
>}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."
>
Yep, just after I sent the message I found this  construction in one of the
texts I am using.Incidentally, my name in Federation Standard is Ron Van
Gurp, but it is to be pronounced according to the Klingon spelling. 

>}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.}

I should have expected this since in Dutch we do the same: to be alive =
leven, to reside =wonen. I found {Dab} in "Klingon for the Galactic Traveller". 
>
>}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.

What I meant to say was, indeed:"when I work I am a material science
officer=chemist(because that is what I do for a living)". If {tej} means
science, does 
(Hap tej} cover chemistry? If so then I am a "Hap tejWI'". 

jIvumtaHvIS Hap tejwI' jIH

>
>}*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'}?

bIlugh. I have *no* idea what gave me loSvaDwI'. What I meant was 

*Bill Albert* 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.

So how does one use {pong}? Does it refer to the 'act of naming' something,
like 'I name this baby so-and-so?' In Dutch we distinguish 'noemen'(the act
of naming something or someone) and 'heten' (to be called something). In my
sentence I used {pong} in the latter meaning. Can this meaning be expressed
in Klingon?   

>
>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"

Got it :-). I will turn this construction into a nice drill....
>
>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.

maj. jIyajqu'

>
>}(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.

Is there a good Klingon word for 'bird'? I can hardly imagine that birds are
called 'skycreatures' on Qo'noS. 
>
>}>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.
>
Thanx for clearing that up, that part was a bit confusing. 

>}>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.

So if some Klingon 'bomwI'' would use the word "'IHbe'ghach" that would
bmean something like 'beauty-lessness'?

>}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.

tlhIngan Hol vIHaDbejtaH.

>
>Qov     [email protected]
>Beginners' Grammarian                 
>
>
>

Back to archive top level