tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Jan 02 12:13:16 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC -- jIlIHegh (extreme beginner)
- From: Qov <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: KLBC -- jIlIHegh (extreme beginner)
- Date: Fri, 02 Jan 1998 12:12:47 -0800
At 12:45 98-01-01 -0800, notjISaH wrote:
}In a message dated 97-12-26 23:33:58 EST, you write:
}> valqu'ba' loDnI'lIj.
}
}valqu'bej 'ach QaQ meqwIj'e' Hon. pIj mutlhob <<qatlh Hol 'oghlu'pu'bogh
}Daghoj DaneH?>> tlhIngan Hol vIlo'laHbe''e' Qub loDnI'wI'. jIQoch.
}
}(He is certainly very intelligent, but he doubts that my reason is good.
}(assuming {meq} to mean "rational thought" or something similar) He often
}asks me "Why do you want to learn a language that someone has invented?" My
}brother thinks that I won't be able to use the Klingon Language. I disagree.)
majQa'.
The {'e'} in the sentence as object (SAO) construction should be a separate
word, not a suffix. {QaQ meqwIj 'e' Hon} {vIlo'laHbe' 'e' Qub}
}Wow, there is a lot of opportunity here for the oh-so-desirable English poetic
}parallel structure...
}
}> > ghomvamDaq jIchu'. DaHjaj jIHvaD TKD
}> > nobpu' loDnI'wIj.
}>
}> All this is fine with one little comment.
}> {-pu'} does not mean past tense. It means perfective aspect.
}> Your English translation says, "...my brother gave me...".
}> That's simple past tense. Klingon doesn't have tense, so past
}> tense is simply figured out from context. You set the time
}> context with {DaHjaj} and considering how well you've done up to
}> this point, we'd have to assume it was earlier today that you
}> got your TKD.
}
}So it should simply be {DaHjaj jIHvaD TKD nob loDnI'wI'}? I didn't write the
}verb that way because of what TKD said in the introduction to the Aspect
}suffixes (4.2.7)... "The absence of a Type 7 suffix usually means that the
}action is not completed and is not continuous." It seemed like the action was
}completed, a discrete event. He gave it to me. The giving is over. Maybe
}I'm still confusing the tense/aspect thing, or maybe I should simply translate
}more carefully. I don't mean to question what you say here at
}all...apparently it's pretty basic and accepted, etc....I just don't
}understand what is meant by {nob} alone when there is a past-tense time frame
}from the context.
Except for the {loDnI'wIj}, I had no problem with the sentence as you
originally wrote it.
}vIghorpu' -- I had broken it. / I have broken it. / I will have broken it.
}vIghor -- I broke it. / I break it. / I will break it.
Dayajchu'.
}Sure, but...how does the non-completion part fit w/ {vIghor}?
At the time he gave it to you it wasn't complete.
}(I've read the more recent, and very lengthy, posts on this topic, and I see
}how it's obviously supposed to work...I just can't wrap my brain around how
}it'd feel to a native speaker of Klingon to mark verbs with aspect instead of
}tense...)
Don't think of it as an 'instead.' Think of it as Klingon doesn't have one.
Klingon happens to have the other. When you use most verbs in English, you
must specify whether its action is in the past present or future. A Klingon
can speak of an action without tying it to a time relative to the present.
We can with a few verbs where the past and present are the same.
{qaqIp} is a little similar to "I hit you."
wa'Hu' qaqIp - I hit you yesterday.
DaH qaqIp - I hit you now.
bIjatlhchugh qaqIp - If you speak, I hit you. (ok, that one isn't quite
grammatical in English, but it gets said. I'm stretching.)
Maybe that's why Okrand chose "hit." Dunno.
}> As written in Klingon, it would translate: "Today, my brother
}> has given me TKD," or "Today, my brother had given me TKD," or
}> even "Today, my brother will have given me TKD." None of this
}> matches what you apparently intended, so you probably want to
}> omit {-pu'} here.
I'm usually the aspect Nazi around here, and I don't have charghwI''s objection.
Maybe I just ate too many rum balls. Unfortunately we have no native
speakers around here to set us straight.
}I translated that suffix as "gave" because some of the examples in TKD (4.2.7)
}under {-pu'} are translated into simple past or
}whatever..."wanted"..."told"...so i assumed it was acceptable. I should've
}been more precise, under the circumstances. AND I need to get access to and
}study a lot more canon, apparently...
Nah, you just need to get yourself to qep'a' so we can talk to you. Learn
the vocab and practice yelling. {Qov, HIghoS! majatlh vIneH!}
}> > wa'maH' Soch ben boghpu'.
}>
}> Except for forgetting the right prefix, this is perfect. Who was
}> born seventeen years ago?
}
}wa'maH' Soch ben jIboghpu'.
}
}{ben} is a noun, but the entire "17 yrs. ago" phrase is adverbial or
}something, not an object...or at least that's my reasoning for using {jI}.
Right. It's a timestamp.
}> Anyway, I think there is something about names on the FAQ you
}> were supposed to have gotten when you joined the list. You might
}> check at http://www.kli.org. I think there is a link to such
}> things...
}
}Qu'vatlh!!! jabbI'IDghom lIHbogh *FAQ*Hom'e' vIlaDpu'. *website* *FAQ*
}vIlaDpu'be'. jeH jiHlaw'. poHvatlhDaq *website*Daq *FAQ* vInejpu'be'.
}chotu'moHDI' vIlaD.
Always {jIH}. A vowel wrong in {poHvetlh}, "that time."
}--The construction {poHvatlhDaq} does not seem very probable from what I have
}read. Can the locative suffix be used to mean "at" a time? Or would it maybe
}have to be some complex "During the time before ____some specific
}occurence___"?
Klingons don't habitually use the metaphor of place to refer to times, so
omit {-Daq}. You just need {poHvetlh} for "at that time."
}Supvam vIlo'pu'chugh qay' jIH Quch law' jIH Quch puS.
Hmm. This gets weird.
{Supvam vIlo'pu'chugh} "if I had used this resource" -- qay'be'
{qay'} - "it is a problem" -- I don't understand why you put it there,
unless as a parenthetical coment that the upcoming comparative was a
problem! Maybe you meant to say {vaj} "thus"?
{jIH Quch law' jIH Quch puS} I accept that you are trying to translate "I
would be happier" and that you have correctly realized that it is a
comparative, with an implied, "I would be happier than I would be
otherwise." Klingon doesn't to our knowledge have a subjunctive and people
usually wave their hands at this point and point out that Klingons as a
people aren't terribly concerned with might have beens.
Would you be satisfied that {Supvam vIlo'pu'chugh muQuchmoHpu' De'}
represents your thought?
}OK, I admit that it all falls apart on that last phrase. Can I put suffixes
}on verbs in that comparative formula?
I'm comfortable with suffixes on the verbs, but not on the {law'} and {puS}
themselves.
}--chotu'moH..... "you cause me to discover/notice (something)"? One of the
}examples of the use of {-moH} in TKD 4.2.4 is {HIQoymoH}, and is translated as
}"let me hear (something)". This is the reason I felt semi-comfortable using
}the {cho-} prefix. However, the example I just cited is a command, so it
}might not apply....or I could be reading the implications incorrectly.
}Comment?
bIpabchu'.
}vay'mey mughojmoHbejpu'.
}
}(Heehee!! I just couldn't resist! That is supposed to read "You have
}definitely taught me some stuff (somethings)." Interesting stuff, I might
}add. Mainly though, I just wrote it in hopes of finding out if the Klingon
}word {vay'} has the same pluralization oddities as the various English
}translations, or if we can feel it as a regular Klingon noun, just pulling the
}meaning from the English.
We've never seen {vay'} plural like that. I'd say it was as incorrect as the
English "somethings." English "something" is translated {vay'}. English
"some things" is translated {Dochmey}.
}Also, just to make sure: {ghojmoH} is actually
}listed in the dictionary part of TKD, so if I happened to want to use a type 2
}verb suffix with it, I should just treat it as an entire word, and NOT order
}things around the {-moH}? )
Order things around the {-moH}. With the exceptions of {lo'laH} "be
valuable" and {HeghmoH} "be fatal," verbs in the dictionary section that
appear to be verb + suffix are believed to be just examples of verb +
suffix. {nga'chuq} and {ja'chuq} are nagging me to go in that category too,
but the suffixes are type 1 so unles we want to fight about {nga'Ha'chuq}
vs. {nga'chuqHa'} it's moot.
bIpo'bej, notjISaH. bIchu'ba' 'ach ram. qep'a' wejDIchDaq jIpawDI' jIchu'
je jIH 'ach bIpo' jatlh Hoch. jIchu' vIneH! 'ach chu'wI' jIH net chaw'Qo'.
DaH Dochmey law' vIyajbe'taH 'ach tlhIngan HolvaD po'wI' jIH 'e' vIlaj. reH
jIjatlh TKD DalaDchugh bIpo'choHlaH. ngoDvam Da'ang neH. yIHem 'ej yIghojtaH.
jumuvta'mo' maQuchqu'.
Now take that ridiculous "extreme beginner" off your subject line. :)
Qov [email protected]
Beginners' Grammarian