tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Feb 08 12:19:30 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: Re: qechmey vIHutlh
ja' Qov :
> At 13:25 98-02-02 -0800, HovqIj wrote:
> }Sorry people. I didn't want to annoy you with this e-mail. The message was
> meant
> }for the KLBC. I forgot to write it in the subject line.
>
> Just as well you said. I'd just decided to leave it for others and gone on
> to the next one. I wouldn't be surprised if I missed a couple of things in
> here.
>
> }> vaghleS jIHvaD tetlhvamDaq jar wejDIch rInpu'. wej tlhIngan Hol
> }> vIghojchu'be'ta'mo'
>
> You don't need {wej} and {-be'}. Either you "not yet have," or "you have
> not."
> If you use both you "not yet have not."
HIvqa' veqlargh. mu' wa'DIch vIqel, mu' cha'DIch vIqel, ... 'ach mu'tlhegh naQ
vIqel 'e' vIlIjba'. (I really have to learn the usage of {'e'} - I need it so
often.)
>
> }> jIHvaD jIQeH 'ej tlhIngan ghItlh vIqon 'e' jIraD'egh.
>
> The sentence as object (SAO) construction with {'e'} means that the first
> sentence is the object of the following verb, therefore logic and grammar
> demands that the prefix on that verb be one denoting an object. But then
> you have a problem: jIraD'egh is "I force myself." You have to decide what
> is the object of the forcing: you or the action. You might express the idea
> you seek with:
>
> {tlhIngan ghItlh vIqonmeH jIraD'egh}
>
HIpIch! <chay' "We tell each other a story" vImugh?> jItlhob 'ach qay' {-'egh}
{-chuq} je 'e' vIlIj. ('e' again... I just can't live without it.)
> I see as I work through this that I'm correcting {'e'} many times. I'll go
> over the one valid use for {'e'}. It has NO other uses.
>
> You have an action, represented by a verb that takes an object. And the
> object of that verb is another action, or state of being, or something else
> represented by a verb or by an entire sentence. So you write the first
> sentence, then you represent it by the word {'e'} in the object position of
> the next sentence.
>
> {yaDDu'wIj Dachop 'e' vItIv} "I enjoy it when you bite my toes."
> {muqawmoH SoSwI' 'e' vImuS} "I hate having my mom remind me."
> {nIQwIj DaSop 'e' vIlegh} "I see you ate my breakfast."
> {yIntaH 'e' vISov} "I know that he will live."
>
> The word {'e'} is often translated "that," but you can see from the above
> that the word "that" isn't necessary in a translation. And there are many
> meanings of the English word that that must not be represented with {'e'}.
>
> If "which" or "this" can be substituted without for "that" or if "that" is
> anything other than the object of the sentence, don't even try to use {'e'}
> to translate it.
>
> }> toH...
> }> nuq ngaS lut? 'e' qay'qu'.
>
> This is a misuse of {'e'}. The thing that is a problem is the subject, not
> the object of {qay'}. There is no "sentence as subject" structure in
> tlhIngan Hol.
> You could just say {qay'qu'} and let the subject be understood. Some might
> not like to say that a story {ngaS} its topic. I would have used {qel} but
> won't call {ngaS} wrong.
>
> }> vaj yInwIj lut DajHa' neH vIghItlh.
>
> This one isn't in TKD, only HolQeD, but {qon} is a much better word than
> {ghItlh} here. {ghItlh} is just the act of making marks. {qon} is the
> actual intellectual effort, and is the correct word to use for the combined
> process of thinking and making the marks.
>
> }>javHu'
> }> jIropchoH.
> }> (vaj tlhIngan jIHlaHbe'law') qaStaHvIS jaj puS QongDaqDaq jIH 'ach DaH
> }> jIpIvqa'.
> }> jIroppu'mo' tlhIngan QInmey vIlaDlaHchu'be'. DaH vIlaDmeH nI' QIn tetlh.
>
> {-meH} isn't quite the right construction to represent this idea. You're
> saying that the purpose of the list's length is your reading it. The list
> isn't long for that purpose. Try:
>
> {DaH QIn law' vIlaDnIS} - "Now I have to read a lot of messages."
> or
> {DaH nI' QIn tetlh} = "Now the list of messages is long."
>
> }> jIropchugh wa' ngoD QaQ neH tu'lu': DuSaQDaq jIjaHnISbe'. 'ach DuSaQDaq
> }> jIjaHnISqa'DI' Dochmey law' vIHutlhbogh vIghojnIS. 'e' QaQbe' je.
>
> {'e'} problem again.
>
> }> lutvam
> }> taHmoH
> }> jIHvaD 'e' ngeDHa'.
>
> Again you've tried to put the subject of a verb into an SAO construction.
> No can do.
>
> }> DIvI' HolvaD ghItlhvam vImughpu'be'. vaj vImughchoH
>
> I'd put the {-be'} on the verb, not the aspect. I just find it hard to
> interpret on the aspect.
>
I like it on the aspect. But I'm not a linguist. I'll trust you that it's
confusing. (In Klingon this would be {'e'} again! mISmoH 'e' qavoq. This is not
just a bad style I have - see? - when writing Klingon. I do it in all languages
all the time. I think it's impossible to rescue me.)
> }> 'ej
> }> chaq
> }> vImughta'DI' qechmey latlh vIghaj...
> }>
> }> 5 days from now the 3rd month on this list (Is a list a physical place?)
> will
> }> be
> }> finished for me.
>
> I think you can be on a list like this with {-Daq}.
>
> }> .. 'ach Qaghmey yap 'e' vIQub
>
> bIlughlaw' ... bIDoy'choH. {yaplaw' Qaghmey}. When your OVS starts to slip
> you must be getting tired.
>
bIlughbej. jIDoy'qu'ba'.
> }> .. but I think that's enough for now
>
> }> Qaghmey law'qu' ngaSbogh pab 'ay' vIqeqmeH mu'thleghmey HInob. HIqaD.
>
> {mu'tlheghmey} Got to train your fingers not the put the "th" together.
> You know you've got it when you have to use the backspace to type "health"
> and "triathlon."
>
> A really good workout for your skills, gave you a chance to find a couple
> things you needed to learn. Read up on SAO (6.2.5) and {-meH} {6.2.4} and
> try a few sentences that use these constructions correctly.
>
> Here are some to start you off:
>
> We understand that the fools sabotaged the life support system.
yIntagh luSorgh qoHpu' 'e' wIyaj.
> They acted quickly so we wouldn't notice them.
DItu'be'meH nom vang.
> In order to fix it we have to dissassemble the forward gas vent.
wItI'meH SIp yIb 'et wIlaghnIS. (maybe {nIn} instead of {SIp}? I'm not quite sure
what a "gas vent" is.)
wa' mu'tlhegh vIchel:
pab vIghojmeH jIqeqnIS 'e' vISov.
>
>
> Qov [email protected]
> Beginners' Grammarian
>
HovqIj