tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Aug 11 11:59:58 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
In Which Lt. Cdr. Barrows Responds To Having Her Klingon Miswriting Butt Kicked By Two BGs
- From: "Lt. Cdr. Sarah Barrows" <[email protected]>
- Subject: In Which Lt. Cdr. Barrows Responds To Having Her Klingon Miswriting Butt Kicked By Two BGs
- Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 14:58:14 -0400
- CC: Robyn Stewart <[email protected]>, David Trimboli <[email protected]>
Maybe I'm just a bit moody today. I dunno. Anywho.
>>> >'IH maS. pem Hov wov law' maS wov puS, vaj maS wIbejlaH.
>>> qaQochbe'chu'. maS vIbejDI', jIDoghchoH. 'e' vIjatlhpu''a'? :)
>>
>>It's not necessarily true that you may say ?/qaQochbe'/ for "I agree
>>with you" The person agreed with isn't the object of the verb, the
>>way the definition is given. If /Qochbe'/ said "agree, agree with
>>(someone)," then you'd know you could do it. FOr now I treat /Qoch/
>>like /Qong/ and say that if it has an object, I don't know what it is.
>>It could be the topic agreed on, for example.
>
>Ah, but we're dealing with the prefix trick again, aren't we? You can
say
>{qajatlh} even though the direct object of {jatlh} is not the person
you
>agree with.
>
>Now perhaps some people are starting to see why I didn't like the
prefix
>trick before it was "canonized." The potential for abuse and vagueness
is
>very high.
>
Okay, maybe I wasn't thinking in a totally Klingon way when I wrote
that. Having looked at it again and thought about it I realise that
ordinarily I would just have written /jIQochbe'/, "I agree". Sometimes I
mess up in the heat of things, y'know? Isn't being able to converse in
tlhIngan Hol with some degree of fluency one of the big objects of the
list, and of learning tlhIngan in the first place? I know it's at the
top of my list. At the qep'a' we say all kinds of weird stuff that isn't
exactly grammatically correct but is more-or-less easily understood by
the conversants. ::pout::
>>And you do know better than to use /'e' jatlh/ with the object being
>>the words said. You meant /jIjatlhpu''a'/ without /'e'/.
>
>Not to mention that she put a {-pu'} on what she though was the second
verb
>in a sentence as object construction . . .
>
>SuStel
Now, I don't see that. I meant to say something along the lines of,
"Haven't I already said that?" or "Didn't I say that before?" which is
why I used /-pu'/. Maybe it's a case of my mixing up tense with aspect
again. I have been into Latin again a bit lately. Amavi, amavisti, ama-
*smack!* This is a *Klingon* list, Syd! Pay attention!
Ahem. What SuStel said confuses me, though I suspect that means I have
to go back to reading my TKD. I was gonna do that anyway. No, honest!
It's been too long since I actually sat down with the grammar section,
and from the looks of things I could use a refresher course.
Right. I think that'll do it for now, unless the Grammarians wanna take
any more blunt objects to my foolish cranium.... :) Remember the
disclaimer I wrote at the top of the message (which wasn't originally
intended that way but it works) -- maybe I'm moody. That happens a lot.
Especially under the influence of the full moon. I'm not mad, I'm just
.... well, humbled, I guess. :) A bit 'o that is good for ya every now
and then. Anybody got any band-aids? ;D
--
Lt. Cdr. Sarah Barrows, Starfleet
a.k.a. Sydney!
------
Human jIH 'ach tlhIngan tIq rur tIqwIj!
<I may be human, but I've a Klingon heart!>