tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Jan 21 17:15:33 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: taghqa' DuSaQ
- From: Qov <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: KLBC: taghqa' DuSaQ
- Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 17:14:44 -0800
At 04:54 98-01-20 -0800, charghwI' wrote:
}A note or two on a generally fine post:
}
}On Sun, 18 Jan 1998 02:55:39 -0800 (PST) Qov <[email protected]>
}wrote:
}
}> Sorry, I got distracted. I do that. My plants died when I started learning
}> Klingon, because I forgot to water them. I'll try to catch up, now.
}
}I hope the distraction was interesting.
Dajqu'. ;)
}> At 11:22 98-01-06 -0800, HovqIj wrote:
}> }Hi. I wrote this text today. Unfortunately I won't be able to study much
}> }Klingon
}> }the next few weeks, I have to do a lot of other work. :(
}> }
}> }qaStaHvIS cha' Hogh juHDaq jIHpu'.
}> }I've been at home for two weeks.
}>
}> Not sure that perfective is correct or incorrect here. English used
}> perfective for this meaning. French uses present. Who knows which Klingon
}> chooses.
}
}I get frustrated with this, myself. As odd as it may sound, I
}think I'd go for:
}
}DaHjaj qaStaHvIS cha' Hogh juHDaq jIratlhpu'.
}
}Now, the time context is clearer. Trying to use {qaStaHvIS cha'
}Hogh} as a time stamp is confusing because we can't tell if it
}was the past two weeks or the NEXT two weeks or even some OTHER
}two weeks. If we preceed the whole thing with "today", then we
}know that today we have remained at home while two weeks
}happened. Perfective makes sense, establishing "today" as the
}end marker for the duration.
jIQochbe'chu'. It's just that I've never found 'makes sense' to be a really
good predictor of hat any given language is going to do next.
}> {nejwI'} is
}> an interesting choice for "test." I think I would prefer {qaD} or {tobwI'},
}> but I don't really like either. Perhaps {laHwIj Dajlu'}, and avoid having
}> to have a noun at all.
}
}Qov, you've done it again. The whole reason I started to respond
}to this was that {Dajlu'} looked like a mistake because I
}learned my vocabulary through repeated use of words, so I have
}not learned many of these less-commonly used definitions for
}words. Just before making comment, however, I remembered that I
}was dealing with the person who has memorized more vocabulary
}than anyone else I've ever met and there it is: "test
}inconclusively". {Dajlu'} = "is tested inconclusively". Perfect.
Grin. I was in undergraduate chemistry at the time I started Klingon, and
the two meanings of {Daj} didn't seem too diverse. An experiment that went
off in an unpredicted direction can generally be described with {Daj}.
}> }qaStaHvIS loS Hogh nejwI'vam rurbogh nejwI'mey law' tu'lu'.
}>
}> }There will be many tests that resemble this test for four weeks. (I wanted
}> to }try
}> }a {-bogh}-sentence... ).
}>
}> Or perhaps {lutu'lu'}, just because I'm pedantic. We've never actually seen
}> {lutu'lu'} used here, where the rules say it should be.
}
}I'm pretty sure Okrand said this is like "who/whom" in English.
}{lutu'lu'} is definitely better, though many people make the
}mistake.
When I mentioned this to MO at qep'a' his response was along the lines of
"Sort of. It explains it in my new book." (This was after KGT went to the
printers but before it was available, making this the infuriating response
to just about every question we posed).
Qov [email protected]
Beginners' Grammarian