tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Feb 05 04:23:14 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC Poetry (the child is happy)
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: KLBC Poetry (the child is happy)
- Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 07:23:32 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
- Priority: NORMAL
On Tue, 3 Feb 1998 22:20:52 -0800 (PST) Alan Anderson
<[email protected]> wrote:
> edy jang Qov:
> >}'IHqu' vutpa'Daq ghaHtaH be'Hom'e'
> >}[The girl in the kitchen is very beautiful]
> >
> >Uh uh. You may not break up the OVS with a noun that is no part of it. Get
> >your {-Daq} to the front of the sentence.
> >
> >{vutpa'Daq be'Hom 'IHqu' tu'lu'} There is a very beautiful girl in the
> >kitchen.
>
> It looks like edy might just be missing a {-bogh} in his sentence.
> {'IHqu' vutpa'Daq ghaHtaHbogh be'Hom'e'} matches his English translation.
> Unfortunately, this has that ugly and sour-tasting {-Daq ghaHbogh} in it.
I vote for <vutpa'Daq be'Hom 'IHqu' tu'lu'}. It is simpler and
carries all the meaning without the "to be"-centricity that fits
Klingon so poorly. There's also the two sentence option:
vutpa'Daq Qambogh be'Hom Daleghpu''a'? 'IHqu'!
> >}'IHqu' vutpa'Daq ghaHtaH be'Hom'e' 'e' wIQochbe'
> >}[We agree that the girl in the kitchen is very beautiful]
> >
> >If the sentence were correct you could append {'e' wIQochbe'} to say we
> >agreed on it.
> >
> >}jot vutpa' 'IHqu'Daq ghaHtaH be'Hom'e'
> >}[The girl in the very beautiful kitchen is calm]
>
> A missing {-bogh} here too: {jot vutpa' 'IHqu'Daq ghaHtaHbogh be'Hom'e'}
'IHqu' vutpa'. pa' jot be'Hom.
> If this is indeed what edy meant, then it's partially a problem with the
> phrase "the girl in the kitchen." It can be more completely stated as
> "the girl who is in the kitchen," which is how the Klingon grammar goes.
>
> Qov continues:
> >I don't like relative clauses with pronoun as to be. I am intrigued by the
> >various suggestions of what to do with {-Daq} on relative clauses, but I
> >accept none of them as material I can put in a KLBC. All I can say when you
> >do both at once is: Qo'!
>
> I agree that a pronoun with a {-bogh} suffix is a bit contrived. They
> usually don't pop up unless someone is trying to translate an existing
> sentence into Klingon, and they can usually be dismissed with a little
> creative rephrasing of the idea.
I strongly agree.
> -- ghunchu'wI'
charghwI'