tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Jan 21 13:55:39 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 13:54:46 -0800
At 11:21 98-01-21 -0800, DloraH wrote:
}>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?
}
}Seeing this I realize that I tend to do the same.
}It looks like if there is an X in general we use [tu'lu'], but when we are
}refering to a specific X then we use [pronoun/to be].
}DuqDaq ghew tu'lu' there is a bug in the bowl
}Which bug? Just simply "a bug, any bug"
}non-specific object, non-specific subject
}DuqDaq 'oH ghew the bug is in the bowl
DuqDaq 'oH ghew'e'
}specific subject, "the bug", not any other bug, but "that" one, the one we
}are aware of and possibly refered to already.
}
}>}>There was a child on the floor.
}>}
}>}ravDaq 'oH puq'e'
}>
}>So I read this as "The child was on the floor."
}
}Say this line a watch out for the mother's fist. A puq is a ghaH, not a 'oH.
reH Suvrup SuvwI''a'! I make this mistake ALL the time in English, too,
calling children "it" until they are articulate human beings. I haven't
been hit yet, but I have had some pretty strange looks.
At least I'm consistent between languages.
Qov [email protected]
Beginners' Grammarian