tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Feb 04 18:05:34 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: Film summary
- From: Qov <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: KLBC: Film summary
- Date: Wed, 04 Feb 1998 18:04:28 -0800
At 12:54 98-02-02 -0800, tlhIbwI' wrote:
}In article <[email protected]>, Qov
}<[email protected]> writes
}>}I understand that as: "While the girl's entire life is happening, BOB
}>}abuses the girl." Or, in proper English (not verbatim translation) "BOB
}>}abuses her for her entire life."
}>
}>Yes. Or "abused."
}>
}Bloomin' past tense.
English is like that. All those stupid tenses. Aren't you glad Klingon
doesn't have any?
}>}>More complicated:
}>}>
}>}>{regh volchaHDaj} "His shoulder was bleeding."
}>}>{volchaHDaj qIp HIvje'} "The mug hit his shoulder."
}>}>{HIvje' chagh verengan} "The Ferengi dropped the mug"
}>}>
}>}>reghbogh volchaHDaj qIp HIvje' chaghbogh verengan
}>}>This could mean either:
}>}>"The mug the Ferengi dropped hit his bleeding shoulder."
}>}>or
}>}>"The Ferengi who dropped the mug hit his bleeding shoulder."
}>}
}>}Ah, I can just about see both meanings. I think I'd have originally
}>}translated the first as:
}>}
}>}The Ferengi dropped the mug which hit his bleeding shoulder.
}>}
}>}And then re-arranged it to give something close to what you put. (Much
}>}more wordy and bad though).
}>
}>Ah. You must remember that the {-bogh} coes on the verb of the SECONDARY
}>clause, not the main clause.
}>
}>In your sentence the main clause is "the Ferengi dropped the mug" in mine it
}>is "the mug hit his bleeding shoulder."
}>
}>Translate "The Ferengi dropped the mug which hit his bleeding shoulder."
}
}This is like the previous one, right? The guard disturbed the targ who
}was sleeping. So...
}
}The Ferengi dropped the mug {main clause}
}The mug hit his bleeding shoulder {secondary clause}
Actually, there are two secondary clauses:
the mug hit his shoulder
and
his shoulder was bleeding
Expanded, this sentence is: The ferengi dropped the mug which hit his
shoulder which was bleeding.
}reghbogh volchaHDaj qIpbogh HIvje''e' chagh verengan
majQa'. It sounds just as convoluted as the English, but it can be parsed.
}>}The man who is respected by the alien tickles the targ that is bitten by
}>}the bug.
}>}
}>}The alien who respects the man tickles the targ that is bitten by the
}>}bug.
}>
}>You're recasting these to passive voice in English. Not the point.
}
}Sorry, it's just easier for me to do something like "The man is
}respected by the alien" than "The man whom the alien respects" because I
}am a fool.
The "whom" is optional. :) You could have just said "The man the alien
respects." Just remember that you have to add in the relative clause marker
when translating the other way.
}>Oh oh. I haven't made my point at ALL. The object could be either Noun2 or
}>Noun1. I gave you two relative clauses in one example. I suppose I should
}>have started with one.
}>
}
}Actually, you did make your point. I thought for quite a while that
}that was the way it was intended. A couple of things stopped me.
}1) tlhIbwI' jIH
}2) It didn't make sense to say that you could tickle a bug.
}3) It seemed to fit that the object was Noun2 (In this case, the targ,
}not the bug). However, of course, targ was in the Noun3 position
}(again, I am a fool) so that argument falls flat on its face.
That's actually a reasonable argument for not putting the disambiguation
marker on. No intelligent person would think that the officer as tickling a
bug, and if this hadn't been an explicit exercise in using {-'e'} for
relative clause disambiguation, I wouldn't have commented. yIjeQ jay'!
}>}I see a Klingon. {tlhIngan vIlegh}
}>}The Klingon kills the Romulan. {romuluSngan HoH tlhIngan}
}>
}>}I see a Klingon who kills the Romulan.
}>}romuluSngan HoHbogh tlhIngan vIlegh
}>
}>majQa'. Dayaj. The alternate meaning is "I see a Romulan whom a Klingon
}>kills," but it amounts to the same thing.
}
}I suppose in many situations, it could. Of course, it's better to be
}accurate (Klingons may be inaccurate, but they are never imprecise ;)
}
}Unless, of course, it went into the past/future tense. In that case,
}the topic marker would be necessary cos I could have seen the Romulan or
}the Klingon but not the other.
Good. I was going to say that but thought I'd been confusing enough
already. I'm glad you are looking at a kLingon sentence and seeing its
various possible meanings.
Try a few more. If you feel like you've got {-bogh} try a few sentences
with {-meH} too.
Qov [email protected]
Beginners' Grammarian