tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Dec 21 15:52:29 1998

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

RE: [repost] - lutHom

Please:Stop sending me your mail:Thank You!!!

Please Remove This Address :  [email protected]

We were flamed,Please forward the name and address of the mailing list that
you're on,so we can get off of it!!!

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of
> Scott and Jane Beaudry
> Sent: Monday, December 21, 1998 5:44 PM
> To: Multiple recipients of list
> Subject: RE: [repost] - lutHom
>
>
> Thanks for using NetForward!
> http://www.netforward.com
> v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v
>
> Please:Stop sending me your mail:Thank You!!!
>
> Please Remove This Address :  [email protected]
>
> We were flamed,Please forward the name and address of the mailing
> list that
> you're on,so we can get off of it!!!
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of
> > William H. Martin
> > Sent: Monday, December 21, 1998 11:50 AM
> > To: Multiple recipients of list
> > Subject: Re: [repost] - lutHom
> >
> >
> > Thanks for using NetForward!
> > http://www.netforward.com
> > v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v
> >
> > 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