tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Feb 06 01:08:33 1998

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: KLBC: IRC channel tlhIngan HolvaD (taHpu': [your suggestion]

>>> vay' vIchup: tlhIngan Hol buSbogh IRC channel tu'nISlu'.
>> IRC channel tlhIngan HolvaD: IRCnet #Klingon
>
>I"m assuming you are aiming at "IRC channel for Klingon: IRCnet
>#Klingon."  This isn't actually a complete sentence in English, but
>even as a sentence fragment your Klingon is a bit confused.
>
>The construction {<X> <Y>vaD}, where X and Y are both
>nouns, means "for X's Y" or "for the Y of X" with the implication
>that X's Y is the recipient, the beneficiary, or the indirect object
>of the action of the main verb in the clause. "For the IRC channel's
>Klingon language" doesn't make sense.


hmn... I didn't look further than the dictionary saying that {-vaD} was
"for".
I get the point tho, and I remember reading about it....

>tlhIngan HolvaD IRC channel vISamta': IRCnet #Klingon
>
>"I have found an IRC channel for the Klingon language: IRCnet
>#Klingon."
>
>This implies that you looked for it and have succeeded in finding it.


that's exactly what I wish to imply ;-)
the same -vaD problem here too tho...

>> pa'Daq jIH pIj
>
>Reread the section on adverbs in chapter 5.  Note that with a couple
>of exceptions, {pIj} NOT among them, an adverb precedes the clause
>whose verb it modifies.  The dictionary also tells you, I believe it
>is at the end of the nouns chapter, that the nouns {pa'} and {naDev}
>never take the locative {-Daq}.  Your words say roughly: "I am in the
>room.  Often."


argh... should have known this... but, otoh (trying to talk myself out of a
predicament), isn't an IRC channel a chat room? ;-)

>> taHbe' tlhIngan Hol jatlhlaH Hoch 'ach Dajbej Hoch
>
>I can see that you are aiming for something like "Everyone doesn't
>speak Klingon all the time, but everyone is certainly interesting."


no, I meant to say "not everybody speaks Klingon, but ever is certainly
interested in it (Klingon). guess I didn't pass the test on this translation
at all ;-)

>The verb {taH} means "continue, go on, endure" or "be at a negative
>angle."  It doesn't mean "be continuous."  The idea of continuity is
>expressed by the *suffix* {-taH}.  There is actually a discussion
>going in this group and in the KLI journal HolQeD at the moment about
>whether {jatlhlaHtaHbe'} would mean "can't speak continuously" or
>"can speak discontinuously" or "continuously can't speak."  I think
>the meaning is ambiguous between the first two possibilities.
>
>I would cast it as {tlhIngan Hol jatlhlaHtaHbe' Hoch 'ach Dajbej
>Hoch} and then step back to duck the people who say it could mean
>"Everyone is continuously incapable of speaking Klingon" and
>"Everyone can speak Klingon on and off."  I think the context
>resolves the ambiguouity.


and even if so, they are but mild insults... perhaps they would throw the
chairs at you because they expected a better insult tho ;-)

>> pa'Daq yIghoS jIchup
>
>The verb {ghoS} takes the destination or course as its direct object.
>The locative is redundant here.  Aso look at the "sentence as object"
>construction in chapter 6, and see that when one verb is the object
>of another verb other than {neH}, a special construction is required.
>As always, the prefix appropriate to the object must be used.  An
>imperative is only used with an actual imperative, not an implied
>imperative, as when you add in words like "I want you to"  "you
>should" or "i recommend."  If you say flat out to do something, use
>the imperative.  If you hedge and actually make a statement about
>what you want done, it's no longer an imperative.  The word {ghoS}
>means "approach, go away from, follow a course."  It's emphasis is on
>getting there.  Personally, I would use {jaH} here because it isn't
>the approaching or the route to get there that you are interested in.
>The sentence:
>
>{pa' SujaH 'e' vIchup}
>"I recommend that you (plural) go there."


exactly what I wanted it to be.

>> I don't think that last sentence is correct, but it's the best I
>> can make of it.
>
>> at least I'm quite satisfied about my capabilities after
>> only one afternoon of studying the language... ;-)
>
>You have the OVS structure down and you're putting verb and noun
>suffixes on verbs and nouns, respectively.  (This might not sound
>like an accomplishment, but not everyone starts out that way.) For
>one afternoon you're not doing badly at all ...


thx. all I really did was read the grammar part once... aside from the
classical grammars (Latin/Greek), it is the most elegant grammar I've ever
seen, but it's elegant in a completely different way. yeah, I studied Latin
for 6 years, and Greek for 3 years... not that I remember much of it. it all
just faded out in two years' time, though I could probably still translate a
Latin text if I really wanted to. we had the Aeneis as graduation subject
for Latin... tough literature, even for Latin.

>> I've got the basic grammar down,
>
>You're still missing a few points.


so I noticed...

>> but I still have to look up almost every word.

>> Chakotay, another beginning Klingonist
>
>Qov, your grouchy neighbourhood Beginners' Grammarian.
>(jIl Sep taghwI' qeSwI' qej?)

Chakotay, a beginning Klingonist who just found out he was juuuust a bit
overconfident in his capabilities ;-)

Back to archive top level