tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Jan 02 22:48:32 1998

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: KLBC -- jIlIHegh (extreme beginner)

Okay, you corrected my corrections, and I'd like to point out 
this:

On Fri, 2 Jan 1998 12:22:33 -0800 (PST) Qov <[email protected]> 
wrote:

> At 12:45 98-01-01 -0800, notjISaH wrote:
> }In a message dated 97-12-26 23:33:58 EST, you write:
> }...
> }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."  

So, you think {jeH jIHlaw'} is a sentence? Qov! How COULD you? 
You corrected the case of the "i" and didn't see anything else 
wrong with this? A cacaphony of people individually leapt upon 
my {loDnI'lIj} and now you do this and nobody else says a word.

[sigh]

Maybe if I were prettier...
 
> }--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."

I hate for us to be giving such a promising new student such 
conflicting advice, so I'll try to back up my suggestion with 
the one bit of canon I have on the topic of the use of {-vam} on 
time stamps. Note that he never mentions {-vetlh} at all and 
from the sound of it, I doubt {-vetlh} works with time.

**********************Begin Okrand's response on MSN:

Regarding "tonight" and so forth, I'd go along with your 
suggestion:

DaHjaj ram "tonight" (literally "today night" or "today's 
night")

DaHjaj po "this morning" (literally "today morning" or "today's 
morning")

DaHjaj pov "this afternoon" (literally "today afternoon" or 
"today's afternoon")

DaHjaj DungluQ "this noon" (literally "today noon" or "today's 
noon") 

DaHjaj ramjep "this midnight" (literally "today midnight" or 
"today's midnight")

DaHjaj pemjep "this midday" (literally "today midday" or 
"today's midday") 

(The phrases "this noon," "this midnight," and "this midday" are 
a little awkward in English -- we'd probably say "today at 
noon," "tonight at midnight," "today in the middle of the day" 
or something -- but in Klingon, they fall right into place.)

In Klingon, you could even say DaHjaj pem "today's daytime," 
which would probably be typically contrasted with DaHjaj ram 
"today's night" (or "tonight").

wa'leS po "tomorrow morning," cha'leS po "the morning of the day 
after tomorrow" (literally "two-days-from-now morning"), and so 
on work quite nicely.

Adding -vam "this" to most words designating fixed periods of 
time seems to be the only way to indicate "current."  Thus the 
current year or "this year" is DISvam (referring, of course, to 
a Klingon year, or DIS), the current month or "this month" is 
jarvam (jar "[Klingon] month"), and the current week or "this 
week" is Hoghvam (Hogh "[Klingon] week").  There don't seem to 
be special words for "the current year" and so forth comparable 
to DaHjaj "the current day" or "today."  DaHjaj seems to be 
formed of the adverbial DaH "now" plus the noun jaj "day," a 
unique type of formation as far as I know.  It is perhaps by 
analogy to DISvam, jarvam, etc. -- all formed by simply adding a 
noun suffix to a noun -- that Klingons also refer to the current 
day as jajvam "this day" (jaj "day, period from dawn to dawn").

Though they both can be translated "today," DaHjaj and jajvam 
are not quite interchangeable.  As the time element in a 
sentence, DaHjaj (and not jajvam) is used:

	DaHjaj romuluSngan vIHoHpu' "today I killed a Romulan"
	(DaHjaj "today," romuluSngan "Romulan," vIHoHpu' "I have killed 
	him/her")

As the subject of a sentence, on the other hand, jajvam is more 
typically found:

	nI' jajvam "this day is long"
	(nI' "[it] is long [in duration], jajvam "this day")

though DaHjaj is not impossible:

	nI' DaHjaj "today is long"
	(nI' "[it] is long [in duration], DaHjaj "today")

DaHjaj also behaves as a noun (as opposed to an adverbial 
element) in such noun-noun constructions as  DaHjaj gheD "today 
prey" or "today's prey," a term often heard in Klingon 
restaurants with a meaning comparable to "catch of the day."

Phrases such as jajvam po "this day morning" or "this morning" 
are not common, but they're not ungrammatical either.

****************************End of Quote
 
Perhaps no one else gets the sense that {-vetlh} doesn't fit 
time from this explanation, but I do believe that at least one 
should consider it to be noteably absent from canon. Better 
would be to find some event or action relating to "that time" 
and use the suffix {-DI'} to point to it, rather than the vague, 
wittering and indecisive[1] "at that time", which if anything is 
simply redundant, since any time stamp already in context to be 
pointed to as "at that time" is still the time context without 
"at that time", right?

Whatever the case, I think it bad advice to just shrug it off 
and say, "{poHvetlh}? Sure. Looks fine to me."

[1] In a brief dialog long ago on this list, someone asked if 
speaking Klingon actually forced one to be rude, suggesting 
that it did. The quick and perfect response was, "No. Speaking 
terran forces one to be vague, wittering and indecisive."

[Hmm. I seem to be getting carried away. Perhaps I should be 
carried away -- to some gentler place. Breathe. Tai Chi moves. 
Ohmmmmmmmmm. Ahh. All better now.]

Qov, you are doing a fine job. I guess I'm just feeling a little 
over-protective of our amazing new student who happened to show 
up while you were off enjoying the holidays.

> }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? 

I like this. Or, we could use a ghunchu'vian negative and say:

Supvam vIlo'be'pu'mo' Qatlhpu' Qu'wIj.

Instead of referring to what would have been, just describe what 
is, allowing the negative to point out that which didn't happen. 
If you wish to put a more positive spin on it:

DaH Supvam vItu'ta'mo', jIQuchchoHchu'! vItu'pa' loQ jImogh.

> }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.

This could prove to be an interesting discussion. So, which 
suffixes make you feel comfortable on the verbs of quality? All 
of them? Care to show examples of good use of suffixes on verbs 
of quality in comparatives?
 
> 
> }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}. 

Well, {'op Dochmey} perhaps. Anyway, {vay'mey} didn't bother me 
as much as {mu-} used as the prefix for "You taught me". Perhaps 
you are right. I have not seen {vay'mey}, though it seems to fit 
what he wants here: a vaguely identified plural. {vay'} is more 
vague in identity than {Doch}. It is an interesting point; 
likely an error, but an interesting one.
 
> }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. 

It helps to explain that the REASON these are exceptional is 
that they are, by definition, adjectives. That means that like 
{tIn} where you can say {tIn Duj} or {Duj tIn}, you can also say 
{lo'laH Duj} and {Duj lo'laH}, and {HeghmoH tar} and {tar 
HeghmoH}. Except for the two words {lo'laH} and {HeghmoH}, no 
other verbs can be used adjectivally (following nouns to 
describe them) with verb suffixes other than {-qu'}, {-Ha'} and 
{-be'}. 

Since Okrand wanted to use {lo'laH} as an adjective which uses 
{-laH} and {HeghmoH} as an adjective which uses {-moH}, and 
these suffixes are not allowed, he had to declare the suffixes 
officially part of these words, making {lo'} and {lo'laH} 
separate verbs. Similarly, {Hegh} and {HeghmoH} are separate 
words.

> {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.  

Besides, they are not adjectives, so they don't have this 
justification for their exceptional status. Thus, they are 
probably not exceptional and the suffixes are just suffixes.
 
> 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'.

jIQochbe'chu'.
 
> Now take that ridiculous "extreme beginner" off your subject line. :)

Yeah, before the less extreme beginners give you new meaning for 
the term "extreme", as in "new angles that your major joints can 
acquire, particularly, the neck, once wrung."
 
> Qov     [email protected]
> Beginners' Grammarian                  

charghwI'

Back to archive top level