tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Dec 21 18:14:23 1998

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

RE: KLBC [repost] - lutHom

lab Matt Johnson:

> Savan.

> pagh, yIlaD 'ej yIlughmoH -- jIchu'taHvIS, 
> jIDubmeH jIghojnISqu'taH.

> ===
> lutHom 'oH. 

> nom meHDaq De'wI' ghun QeDpIn. 
maj.

> pay' tlhopHomDaq So'Ha'law'pu' romuluSngan veSDuj 'e' jatlh ya.

I really don't know why you used <tlhopHom> here. I would use <Duj tlhop>.

You're also trying to do an indirect qoute with <jatlh>, and we don't have
any evidence that you can do that. <jatlh> only works with direct quotes,
and you can put the quote before or after the <jatlh (subject)>.

pay' Duj tlhopDaq So'Ha'law'pu' romuluSngan veSDuj jatlh ya.

> HaStavaD mutlhob HoD. 

I don't understand what you're saying here. Is the captain asking about the
display? If he's commanding you to put up a display, I would say < <HaSta
yIcha'!> ra' HoD>. If it is the tactical display, replace <HaSta> with
<wIy>. And this is also a good place for Clipped Klingon, so you can drop
the <yI-> prefix if you want to.

> jIHeQta' 'a pagh tu'lu'! 

This is not a good place for <-ta'>. It's better without the aspect suffix.

> pIHbej HoD.

maj. Good use of the other meaning of <pIH>.

> wIyDaj 'olqa' 'e' ya ra' HoD.

This doesn't quite work. I would use the same structure as in <HaSta yIcha'>
above:

yavaD <wIy yI'olqa'> ra' HoD.

> bejpu' ya.

Again, you don't need the aspect suffix. When the action happens, the
tactical officer *is examining* the display. If you add <-pu'>, you are
saying that the officer *had already finished examining* the display. Do you
see the difference?

> QeDpInvaD yIt 'ej ngoqDaj ghun vInuD.

For "I walked", you need the right prefix: <jI->. You should also use the
suffix <-Daq> - you are walking to the location of the officer, not walking
for his benefit.

<ngoq> is defined as "code", but I don't think it can apply to what
programmers produce all day. When interpreting the meanings in TKD, you have
to be as narrow as possible, and only choose the primary meaning of a word.
So a "code" is a system for encrypting information. The <ghun> after <ngoq>
really doesn't work either.

I would just say <De'wI'Daj vInuD> here.

> muHaghmoH! 

Do'Ha' ya. tlhIbba'.

> mujchu' ngoqqoqDaj.

Same comments as above about <ngoq>. In this case, I would say
<ghunHa'qu'ba'>. It's a different way of phrasing it, but it's a more
Klingon way. Instead of concentrating on the thing (noun) that got screwed
up, you are concentrating on the action (verb) of screwing up.

> veSDuj tu'lu'be'bogh leghmoH!

I would have said <tu'be'lu'bogh> here, but I won't say yours is wrong.
Okrand has said there is a difference between <-lu'be'> and <-be'lu'>, but
he has not told us exactly what it is, and I'm not going to speculate on
what it might be - not today, anyway.

> QeHqu' HoD. QaghmeyDajmo', bIghHa'vaD QeDpIn ngeH HoD.

I would probaly say <ya Qaghmo'> instead of <QaghDajmo'> since there are two
"s/he"'s floating around in this sentence, and it's clearer to specify which
one. I also don't see multiple errors, but I suppose that depends on how you
count, so the plural is fine.

Same comments about <-vaD> and <-Daq>: <bIghHa'Daq>.

> ===

> DaH, DIvI' Hol De' qanob.

> 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. The captain 
> asked me for visual. I complied, but there was nothing there!
> The captain was certainly suspicious. He ordered the tactical 
> officer to recheck his display. The tactical officer was sure. 
> I walked to the science officer and checked his programming.
> It made me laugh! It was clearly wrong. It caused him to see a 
> warship that was not there! The captain was angry. Due to his 
> errors, he sent the science officer to the brig.

> ====
> Questions:

> I noted all manner of arguments about reported speech in the FAQ. 
> Does my second sentence work?

Not really. See my suggestion.

> Sentence 4: I think I'm looking for a sentence as an indirect 
> object... can I get away with what I've done?

Same deal.

> Sentence 6: Hacked it about to avoid ambiguity. Does {ngoqDaj 
> ghun} work for 'his programming'?  I don't think you'll like 
> the way I used {ngoq}... (}}8-)

bIlughchu'. In Klingon, it's almost always better style to use descriptive
verbs than to use lots of nouns and generic verbs like <ghaj>, <Hutlh>,
<muj>, etc.

In English, you would say "His answer was wrong". In Klingon you would say
<jangHa'>.


pagh
Beginners' Grammarian

Back to archive top level