tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Jan 21 01:00:49 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC Poetry
- From: Qov <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: KLBC Poetry
- Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 00:59:59 -0800
At 00:59 98-01-10 -0800, tlhIbwI' wrote:
}
}I want to have a go at some of Qov's sentences and these look as though
}I should be able to do them.
These were tailored to match a grammar problem edy was having, but nothing
wrong with having a go. Look at my follow up to Edy's sentences. I'm
following up to yours as well because you have used a different
construction. There are two different ways to say something is somewhere,
in Klingon.
pa'DajDaq ghaHtaH la''e' - The commander is in his quarters.
naDev tlhInganpu' tu'lu' - There are Klingons around here.
I don't know of canon justification for the distinction, but I use them
slightly differently. If the point of my sentence is to state the existence
of something, and give its location, I use {tu'lu'}. {DuqDaq ghewmey
tu'lu'} - "there are bugs in the bowl." If the point of the sentence is to
specify the location of something you're already presumed to know about,
then I might use pronoun as to be. {vutpa'Daq 'oH Duq'e'} - "the bowl is in
the kitchen."
Hmm, that means that I translate "The X is (locative)" with pronoun as to
be, and "A/an X is (locative)" with {tu'lu'}. Daj. Can anyone think of a
reason why I do this?
}>There was a child on the floor.
}
}ravDaq 'oH puq'e'
So I read this as "The child was on the floor."
}>On the child was a bug.
}puqDaq 'oH ghew'e'
}>The bug sat on the child's hand.
}
}puq ghop ba' ghew
That's {puq ghopDaq}. The thing sat on is not the direct object of {ba'}.
}>The child sat on the floor and yelled.
}
}ravDaq ba' puq. jach puq. <<I don't know how to do "and yelled" in one
}sentence - oh no, wait a sec, ravDaq ba' pug 'ej jach ghaH>>
maj, except for that "g" in {puq}. Note that the {ghaH} is optional.
}>The child put his finger on the bug.
}
}ghewDaq nItlhDaj lan puq <<I used place since the two puts in the TKD
}didn't seem right>>
Quite right. majQa'.
}>The bug on the hand died.
}
}Hegh ghopDaq 'oHbogh ghew'e'
}
}<<Definitely wasn't sure about this because of having to use (as I see
}it) a relative clause - The bug which was on the hand died>>
I have to admit I was thinking of the simpler: {ghopDaq Hegh ghew} which
would be better translated "The bug died on the hand." It can be argued
that what I wrote has a different meaning. Relative clauses with locatives
in them are hairy. The only one we have is {meQtaHbogh qachDaq Suv qoH
neH}. I believe that what you have written follows the rules as we know them.
}>Now that the child has killed the bug, the child is happy.
}
}DaH ghew Hohpu' puq, vaj Quch puq
}
}(I debated with myself about how to translate this not knowing whether
}to try it with "now" adverbially or try and do it with -mo' for
}"Because" and is vaj strictly necessary - I think so but I'm not sure).
I intended it for {-mo'}. But your "now the child has killed the bug, thus
the child is happy" works too.
majQa'. Try writing some sentences that use the different verb suffixes and
prefixes.
Qov [email protected]
Beginners' Grammarian