tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Aug 28 22:03:18 1998

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: KLBC - Qov, cholughrupqa'moHchu'neS'a'?

---Burt Clawson <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> KLBC - Qov, cholughrupqa'moHchu'neS'a'?

> ja' pagh:
> > I don't mind at all. More ammunition for the firing squad.....
> 
> I'd like Qov to take first shot, because she wrote the sentences in
the
> first place, so she knows what she was originally trying to convey.
> 
> pagh Qov je Sathlo'
> 
> 
> > chojoy' 'e' DatIv'a', Qovoy?
> TRANS: Do you enjoy torturing me, Qovoy?

qajoy'be'chugh 'Iv vIjoy'laH?  bep tuv'el vIjoy'DI' 'ej DaH taghwI'pu'
joy'nIS pagh.

> I have a nasty feeling I'm going to dig myself into a hole here, so
> throw me a rope if I dig too deep.  I'll probably end up turning sick
> sentences into malignant putrescences, but here goes!

mu'tay'lIj vItIvtaH, tuv'el. 

> ja' Qov:
> > Your assignment, tuv'el, is to explain what is wrong with
> > the sentences, and fix them, if they can be saved.  Your choice
> > whether to send your analysis for pagh's attention or mine.
> 
> > THESE SENTENCES ALL HAVE ERRORS.
> 
> > tlhIngan Hol lujatlh ghotpu' 'e' vInejtaH.
> > I looked (on an ongoing basis) for people who spoke Klingon.
> 
> /who spoke Klingon/ is a relative clause and deserves the /-bogh/
> treatment.
> ghotpu' vInejtaH.  "I searched for people."
> tlhIngan Hol lujatlhbogh ghotpu' vInejtaH.
> "I searched for people who spoke Klingon."

maj.  If you were BG, someone would at this point start a major thread
out of the fact that /-taH/ shouldn't have been used after the
erroneous /'e'/, but I approve of just throwing the whole thing out.

> > Hol qab lujatlh ghotpu' 'e' vItu'pu'.
> > The people I found spoke bad Klingon.
> 
> The people spoke badly, not that the language itself is bad!
> Perhaps /jatlhHa'/ "misspeak"
> Hol lujatlhHa' ghotpu'.

This sentence also had the same errors as the first one.  This was
wovwI''s first KLBC, and she apparently hadn't discovered /-bogh/ yet.
 The only netKlingons she found in 1988 spoke what we now call
Paramount Hol. I don't think /Hol qab/ is wrong, but /Hol lujatlhHa'/
is definitely better. Also /tu'/ is the wrong verb.  From the context
above you know wovwI' was actively looking for speakers.  I haven't
left enough of the context to know if perfective is necessary here,
but I might as well ding wovwI' for perfective, as I keep everyone
else scared over it.

Hol lujatlhHa' ghotpu' vISambogh.
 
> > tIqbej 'oHmo' loS 'ay' vIlab.
> > I'm sending four parts because it's unquestionably long.
> Nouns with type 5 suffixes go at the beginning of the OVS structure,
so
> it's use
> here inadvertantly groups /because of it/ with /I am sendinf four
parts/
> instead
> of with /it is certainly long/ where it belongs.  So, put /-mo'/ on
the
> verb instead.
> Suddenly the /'oH/ is no longer needed as it is already implied by the
> verb.
> Also, /'ay'/ for parts is correct, but *I* like using plural suffixes:
> /'ay'mey/.

> tIqbejmo' loS 'ay'mey vIlab.

Heh. I guess if you're doing the corrections you get to arbitrarily
impose your tastes.  This is fun.  
 
> > jIHvaD yuch qatbogh chagh.
> > He dropped the wrapped chocolate for me.
> (I'm really sticking my neck out on this one, don't chop it off!)
> /qat/ is "encase" not "be encased" so I think I have the perfective
> solution! How
> about /qatta'bogh/?  Oh, and the modifier preceeds the noun it
modifies,
> yes?

Hmm, due to your explicit request I won't chop off you head for
suggesting that a /-bogh/ verb is a modifier to be placed before its
object.

> jIHvaD qatta'bogh yuch chagh.

I'm wondering if I accidentally corrected part of this sentence while
copying it.  I think the original was more diseased. The perfective
suggestion is really good. However, he "wrapped chocolate" was
chocolate wrapped in paper, not chocolate that wrapped something else,
so the word order didn't need to be changed.  I didn't think of the
two possible interpretations of the English.

/jIHvaD yuch qatta'bogh chagh/ "He dropped for me the chocolate that
he had wrapped." or /yuch qatlu'bogh/ "the chocolate that had been
wrapped" - as you didn't have the context to know that the protagonist
had just watched him wrap it.

> > mochwI' ghogh vIQoy <QuvlIj maghaj. yIjolrup!>
> > I heard the voice of my superior. "We have your coordinates.  
> > Stand by for beam up!"

> /QuvlIj wIghaj/ <- Prefix thingee.  
maj.
> /yIjolrup/ seems to be missing something.
> /yIjolrupchoH/ "become ready to beam up," or maybe as a question
I like that.  Good catch.  I wasn't using clipped there. I'd probably
clip it back again to /jolrup/ today, as those two syllables convey
the information, and I can't have my commander spitting
<yIjol'eghrupchoHmoHchu'> while I'm under threat of enemy fire.

> /bIjolrup'a'?/
> mochwI' ghogh vIQoy <QuvlIj wIghaj.  yIjolrupchoH!>
> 
> > yIHHommeyna'wIjvo' HIchevnISQo'neS
jIDub'eghqanqqa'moHlaHbejtaHneSmo'
> > Please, you mustn't separate me from my true little tribbles, as I
am
> > willing and able to once more make myself go on definitely
improving,
> > your honour.
> HIvqa' veqlargh, qar'a'?
> The only problem I see is vsuf 2 /qang/ is misspelled as /qanq/.
> Klingon dentists like this sentence because saying it will dislodge
> any loose teeth one may have.  ;-)
> yIHHommeyna'wIjvo' HIchevnISQo'neS jIDub'eghqangqa'moHlaHbejtaHneSmo'

Grin.  I believe two different grammarians looked at that sentence and
spat on it, with different degrees of tact, then advised me to bury
it, along with any similarly inspired ideas.  In direct defiance of
the grammar rules there is /Qo'/ nestled between a V2 and V8.  Nothing
but V9 should follow /Qo'/.  On the same verb, /-nIS/ and /HI-/ are in
contradiction.  Either someone must do something or you order them to:
you don't order them to be required to.  I also question translation
of 'separate from' as /-vo' chev/.  Aside from that, it's just
overloaded. The 'sentence' is an uninterpretable abuse of suffixes.  

> > qaSIgh 'e' jIbel.
> > I'm glad that I influenced you.
> There's a lonely dangling /'e'/ in this sentence without a home.  He
> doesn't
> go with /jIbel/, because it has no object.  But, /jIbel/ can't take an
> object, so
> how about /mo'/ instead?
> qaSIghmo' jIbel.
maj.
 
> > Maybe your ability to detect the problems in your own sentences will
> > improve when you look at someone else's messes.
> 
> I don't know about that, but I HAVE gained some insight into how truly
> difficult the job of BG really is.  Thanks guys.
 
Yeah, it's one thing to write a correct sentence and quite another one
to take one that someone else has already destroyed and make sense of
it, explaining how.  You have minefields you don't know very well that
you just go around, then some newbie walks straight through the middle
of one, and you have to figure out where the mines actually ARE in
order to pull him out.

lutmey vIqonqa'DI' pabwIj Da'ol DaneH'a', tuv'el?  bIghelqangmo'
maghojlaH. 
==

Qov - FORMER Beginners' Grammarian
"1999 is the penultimate year of the 20th century."




_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

Back to archive top level