tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Feb 06 10:06:19 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: logh veQ
- From: [email protected] (Alan Anderson)
- Subject: Re: KLBC: logh veQ
- Date: Fri, 6 Feb 98 12:59:01 EST
ja' Edy:
>>> tera' bav janHommey law' tu'lu'.
>
>>Since {tera'} is a singular planet and {janHommey} are plural gadgets,
>>the {lu-} prefix is required...
> I thought about it, but as {tera'} were used as locative,
>I thought that I didn't need to use {lu-}.
Nouns used as locatives require the suffix {-Daq}. The exceptions to
this are {naDev} "here", {pa'} "there", and {Dat} "everywhere", which
*never* take {-Daq} according to TKD.
{tera'Daq bav janHommey} would be okay, but I think most people would
consider it similar to {DujDaq ghoS}. It's not wrong, just a little
redundant. We've usually considered {bav} to take the thing being
orbited as its object, similar to the way {'el} has the thing entered
and {ghoS} has the thing approached as objects.
> I would like to say: "500 from the 4.600 are operational".
In English, the common phrasing is "500 of the 4600 are operational."
There's no established way to say this in Klingon as one sentence, so
I'd use two of them.
{bav loSvaD javvatlh SIbDoH. Qap vaghvatlh neH.}
"4600 satellites orbit. Only 500 work."
> There are few air molecules which cause friction and cause
>the deceleration of the satellites. I didn't have a name for
>molecule :-((
Collectively, air molecules make up something called "atmosphere".
Individual molecules don't have a significant effect on the velocity
of a satellite; it's the rarefied air as a whole that slows it down.
If you don't like calling a near-vacuum {muD}, how about {muDHom}?
> In "Sins of father", when Worf knock the door, Kurn says:
>{'el}. No prefix?? Clipped Klingon?
Clipped Klingon is perfectly appropriate in this situation.
>'ej bIQ'a'meyDaq pum ratlhbogh janHommey'e' vaj luchIllu'.
>(The remained artefacts will fall in the ocean, thus they will be lost)
majQa'!
>I'm not sure if the Topic 'e' is necessary here.
It's not required. I don't think it's *wrong*, but I would't use it.
>>> Qaw'mey lIng pumbogh wa'bIp javnetlh janHommeyvo' paghDIch'e'.
>>
>>"The zeroth from one hundred sixty thousand minor devices which fall
>>produce destroys."
>
>>I'm also not sure that an ordinal number (one with {-DIch}) may be
>>used as a noun by itself; if that's what you're trying to do, then
>>you have broken the rule about never putting type 5 suffixes on the
>>first noun of a noun-noun construction. This entire sentence should be
>>scrapped and the idea should be used to build a new one.
>
> So, although my sentence has been understandable, I must use
>the topic 'e' in the first noun which follow the -bogh? I
>attached it in the paghDIch'e', but it not works, right?
The Klingon sentence is *not* readily understandable without some
intense guesswork about what you mean. Using {-vo'} this way isn't
one of the grammatical tools at our disposal. I'm not willing to
speculate about where {-'e'} would need to go if it *were* correct.
>I would like to write: "Only the ships can be hit". But .. 2
>Tipe 5 suffixes :-(
Most of the time, the "can" idea is unimportant in a phrase like this.
Saying {Duj neH luqIplu'} seems to capture the meaning. Unless, of
course, you meant {lumuplu'} or {lungeQlu'}. {qIp} implies to me that
the act is an intentional attack, either literally or figuratively.
>>Not bad, Edy. You made two consistent errors, both of which are
>>easily corrected. You need to remember when to use the "they/it"
>>prefix {lu-}, and you need to work on how to say large numbers.
>
> toH .. jIDub'egh 'e' vInIDtaH :-))
Oh, and you need to remember the rule that prohibits putting a type 7
suffix on the second verb of a Sentence As Object construction, too.
:-) If the "continuous" idea is important, put it on the first verb.
{toH, jIDub'eghtaH 'e' vInID}
>>Your friend ate my lunch.
>(meghwIj Sop juplI')
>
>>The workers breathed smoke.
>tlhIch lutlhuH vumwI'pu'
>
>>We lost our money.
>Huchmaj wIchIl
>
>>Five targs entered their house.
>juHchaj lu'el vagh targh
maj. pup Hoch. yIHem!
>>The waiters pour the liquor.
>HIq lujab jabwI'pu'
There's a specific word {lIch} meaning "pour" which I expected here,
but {jab} works too. I was actually wondering whether you would
choose {qang} or {lIch}, and why.
>>The liquor wets the glasses.
>HIvje'mey yIQmoH HIq
majQa' -- you translated "wets" perfectly! chobelmoHta'.
>>The clock has a face and hands.
>qab ghopDu' je ghaj tlhaq
maj. I'd consider {qabHey ghopDu'Hey je} or {qabqoq ghopDu'qoq je} if
I were writing this for a wide audience.
>>The troops defeated the enemy.
>jagh lujey Qas
Oops -- one of my traps has caught you. I'll forgive the accidental
lowercase {s}, but it doesn't change the fact that {QaS} is one of the
"inherently plural" nouns that is treated as grammatically singular.
Like {cha} "torpedoes" and {chuyDaH} "thrusters", it is one entity.
Your translation seems to be talking about "troopses".
{jagh jey QaS}
>>A Vulcan saw my sisters.
>be'nI'pu'wI' legh vulqangan
>
>>My sisters saw a Vulcan.
>vulqangan lulegh be'nI'pu'wI'
maj.
>>The soldiers lost the battle.
>may' luchIl negh
Again, {negh} is one of the tricky ones. If you wanted to use {mang}
"soldier" instead of {negh} "soldiers" it might work, but there would
almost be an implication of the soldiers being an uncoordinated group
of individuals instead of a team.
My other trap got you too. In this context, the proper word for
"lose" is {luj}. I put this sentence here to make sure you hadn't
gotten overly attached to {chIl} "misplace".
{may' luj negh}
> vonwI'meyvo' vInargh 'e' vInID
You need to say {jInargh}, since that verb has no object.
qavonta'mo' bInarghlaH. Dajonlu'pa' ghaytan bIjunqu' DaneH.
Now that you have been trapped, you can escape. Before you were
caught, you probably wanted to *evade*.
-- ghunchu'wI' (Edy's mentor)