tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Dec 21 09:46:42 1998

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: [repost] - lutHom

On Sat, 19 Dec 1998 07:52:54 -0800 (PST) Matt Johnson 
<[email protected]> wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> William H. Martin <[email protected]> writes
...
> >> nom meHDaq De'wI' ghun QeDpIn. 
> >> pay' tlhopHomDaq So'Ha'law'pu' romuluSngan veSDuj 'e' jatlh ya.
> >
> >not lugh <<'e' jatlh>>. <<'e'>> yIchagh. 'ej <<tlhopHomDaq>>? 
> >qatlh <<-Hom>> Dalo'? ram'a'? machchugh tlhopvam 'ach 
> >potlhchugh, vaj <<-Hom>> Dalo'be'nIS. ramchugh yIlo'.
> 
> jIyaj.
> 
> {pay' tlhopDaq So'Ha'law'pu' romuluSngan veSDuj jatlh ya.}

loQ vIpar. jatlh'a' ya <<pay' tlhopDaq So'Ha'law'pu' romuluSngan 
veSDuj>>? mu'mey jalthlu'bogh DIja'DI', *Direct quote* neH 
wIlo'laH. yIqel:

HaSta laDDI' ya, pay' Dujchaj tlhopDaq So'Ha'law'mo' romuluSngan 
veSDuj, ghumchoH ya. mu'meyDaj pup DISaHbe'.
 
> >> HaStavaD mutlhob HoD. 
> 
> qay'. :-)

jIQochbe'. chaq DuqIpmeH HaSta neH HoD.

HaStalIj HI'ang jatlh HoD.

qoj

<<HaStalIj HI'ang>> jatlh HoD.

> >>jIHeQta' 'a pagh tu'lu'! 
> >> pIHbej HoD. wIyDaj 'olqa' 'e' ya ra' HoD.
> >
> >nuqjatlh? nuq 'oH wot <<ra'>> *object*? <<ya>>? <<'e'>>? wa' DoS 
> >neH yIbuS. tlhIngan mu'ghom 'ay' jav DoD cha' DoD vagh 
> >yIlaDqa'chu'! wej Dayajlaw'. tlhoS, 'ach jatlhlu'DI' reH bIQagh.
> 
> qay' 'e' vIyajbe'. 
> 
> * TKD 6.2.5 reread... and I now see that <'e' jatlh> is very wrong --
> because we don't have indirect quotation... understood. However, I'm
> still in a real mess when it comes to when the SAO acts as a /second/
> object. 

The answer is that it doesn't. It just doesn't. It never does. 
Forget you ever thought that it might. It just doesn't. If you 
think it should, then you probably are confused.

> <wiyDaj 'olqa'> (apparently) works fine for "he verifies his
> tactical display again"... however, [and bear with me here, please! :-)]
> I'm not sure how to express "s.o. orders s.o. to do sth."

Consider the suffix {-meH}. It will give a sense of purpose to 
the verb to which it is attached, and it will make that clause a 
dependent clause attached either to a noun or to a verb, and 
since it is dependent, you don't need {'e'} to refer to it.

> <ya ra' HoD>
> could well be wrong "The cap'n orders the tactical officer" because it
> reeks of <qagh ra' HoD> "The cap'n orders *qagh*". There doesn't seem to
> be any suitable example. An *apparent* way from my POV would be to mark
> the 'e' clause as indirect, but I think it's agreed that <'e'vaD> is
> really bad news.

Very agreed. The only example I know of the use of {ra'} is an 
odd new one where the direct object of {ra'} is {Dujvam}. That 
part of the example translates as "You command this ship". Since 
{ja'} has the person addressed as the direct object, it would 
not be unheard of to consider that the object of {ra'}, given 
the canon example of "command this ship", which more technically 
means to command the people who run the ship... I suspect that 
the captain can order the officer "in order that" or "for the 
purpose of" (hence {-meH}).

If you don't like that, then add {-vaD} on {ya}. I'd still use 
{-meH} on the body text of what is being ordered. He is giving 
the officer a mission/task/purpose. That's what {-meH} is for.
 
> Maybe {wIyDaj 'olqa'meH ya, ra' HoD.}... but this still looks a little
> icky. *

Not icky at all. The English literal translation feels icky, but 
that's just because Klingon uses {-meH} to clearly and smoothly 
say something that is just awkward to say in English. {-meH} 
clauses are very often very loosely translated into English to 
make the wording sound more natural. Meanwhile, they get 
translated several different ways to do this, so there is no 
generic better way to always translate {-meH} clauses. Going 
from Klingon to English, you translate a literal "in order 
to..." in your head and then fudge the wording before it comes 
out your mouth so it is a more natural sounding, if less 
accurate translation into English.
 
> >> bejpu' ya.
> >> QeDpInvaD yIt 'ej ngoqDaj ghun vInuD.
> >
> >qatlh QeDpInvaD yIt'a'? yItlaHbe''a' QeDpIn? chaq <<QeDpIn 
> >ghoS>> Dalo' DaneH. <<gnoqDaj ghun vInuD>>? nuqjatlh? pagh 
> >meqmo' cha' wot Dalo'pu'. yIQubqa'.
> 
> Okay... I'd change the first clause to {QeDpIn jIghoS}, and I understand
> the motivation. 

QeDpIn vIghoS. The science officer is the direct object of 
{ghoS}.
 
> Perhaps {mIw ghunpu'bogh} 'method in which he programmed'?

That is definitely better than {ngoq}.
 
> >> muHaghmoH! mujchu' ngoqqoqDaj. 
> >
> >ghaytan <<ngoq>> Dalo'Ha'pu'. <<De'wI' DaghunHa'pu'>> yIqel.
> 
> See above...
> 
> >> veSDuj tu'lu'be'bogh leghmoH!
> >
> ><<De'wI' DaghunHa'pu'mo' maHvaD veSDujqoq DaleghmoHlaw'. 
> >mInDu'maj toj QapHa'bogh De'wI'>>
> 
> *Ah.* jIyaj... qIghmey DIlo'laH. :-)

maj.
 
> >> QeHqu' HoD. QaghmeyDajmo', bIghHa'vaD QeDpIn ngeH HoD. 
> >
> >DIch vIghajbe'. {-vaD} Dalo'Ha'taH 'e' vIpIH. QeDpIn ngeHDI' 
> >HoD, bIghHa' QaH pagh. qama' moj QeDpIn. bIghHa' DabchoH QeDpIn 
> >'e' raD HoD.
> 
> jIyajbe'. :-( HIyajmoH.

{-vaD} points to the beneficiary of the action. Is jail the 
beneficiary of the captain sending the science officer? Maybe, 
but it feels a little icky. Meanwhile, it is also not quite 
accurate to say the captain sends the officer TO jail by using 
{-Daq}, since that would actually mean that the sending occurred 
at the jail. The captain could be in jail and sends the officer 
away and {-Daq} would be appropriate here. "In jail, the captain 
sends the officer."

All of this just looked icky enough that I dodged the whole 
issue by changing it to something that meant the same thing, but 
used a wholly different, less controversial grammar to say it. 
The science officer became a prisoner.  The captain forced him 
to take up a new dwelling in jail.

> >> On the bridge, the science officer was programming the computer quickly. 
> >> Suddenly, the tactical officer said that a Romulan warship apparently
> >> decloaked right in front of them.
> >
> >*Indirect quotation* Dalo'pu'. wej mIwvam Del *Okrand*. chaq 
> >mIwvam tu'lu' 'ach wej wItu'. DaH *direct quotation* Dalo'nIS.
> 
> * ...hence the problem with <'e' jatlh>. I hope I've fixed this now. *
> 
> >> The captain asked me for visual. 
> >
> >mIwvam wISovbe'bough Dalo'qa'pu'.
> >
> >> I complied, but there was nothing
> >> there!
> >
> >naDev *past tense* Dalo' 'ach DungDaq *perfective* Dalo'. 
> >yIqelqa'.
> 
> yItuv...: 
> 
> * Translation: Here you use the past tense, but above you used
> perfective. Take note! * I used {jIHeQta'} above... are you suggesting I
> use {jIHeQpu'}? 

{-ta'} is still perfective. It adds the sense that the 
perfection of the action was intentional and succeeded in 
accomplishing a goal, but in terms of perfective vs continuing, 
etc. {-ta'} and {-pu'} are the same. Consider {-ta'} to be a 
more specialized version of {-pu'}. All instances of {-ta'} 
could have been stated as {-pu'}, but most instances of {-pu'} 
can't be stated as {-ta'} because they don't have pre-planned 
intentionality behind them.

Similarly, {taH} and {-lI'} are linked. The main difference is 
that {-lI'} has a foreseeable ending; a goal. {-taH} doesn't. 
Meanwhile, both indicate a continued action.
 
> [vIpe']
> 
> HIQaHqangtaH! jIDub vIneH: QaHraj vIpoQ!

laHlIj DaDubbej. pIQaHtaH. yapDI' laHlIj latlhpu' DaQaHchoH.

> -- 
> Matt Johnson <mailto:[email protected]>

charghwI' 'utlh

Back to archive top level