tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Jan 22 20:00:01 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
KLBC Poetry (the child is happy)
- From: "Janete Barros" <[email protected]>
- Subject: KLBC Poetry (the child is happy)
- Date: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 01:53:20 -0200
ghItlh Robyn Stewart:
>ghew HoHpu'mo' puq DaH Quch
>Note that the adverb doesn't have to go at the
>beginning of the whole sentence, just at the beginning of the clause.
'e' vIlegh. The adverb preceed the OVS.
rIntaH
>>I would like to speculate this sentence a bit more before
>>become glad with it. Surely I'll say lot of "bullshits" here
>>but I ask you a bit of your patience. Please, don't throw
>>stone at me.
>
>HelIj botlhDaq naghmey vIlanbe'. :)
:-)))
I prefer the stone in that way than this stone in my shoes!!!
tlhIngan HolDaq mu'tlheghvam vImughqang 'ach tujqu'choH nachwIj
(I am willing to translate this sentence into klingon,
but my head is overheating) :-))
>>1. The child has killed the bug (ghew HoHpu' puq)
>>2. The child is happy (Quch puq)
>>If I say: (ghew HoHpu'bogh puq'e' Quch), one could
>>say: "You cannot put the Topic 'e' in the first noun .."
>>Yes, I know it, but the topic 'e' here refers the previous
>>sentence "ghew HoHpu'bogh" and not the "puq Quch".
>
>Edy, I think you are confusing nouns with verbs. {Quch} is a verb.
>{puq} is a noun.
Absolutely not. I know perfectly that Quch is
be happy (v) and and puq is child (n). I just wanted to
speculate a bit more. I would like to be clearer in
this point, but certanly I'm causing you a big confusion.
>> so, it could mean: "is happy the child who has killed the bug"
>
>"is happy the child who has killed the bug" is NOT a grammatical
>English sentence, but it perfectly represents the error in your
>Klingon sentence. You have the subject and verb out of order.
Yes. I know it. Neither in portuguese that
construction is correct. **Thus** :-)) my
speculation is right!
>I believe I see what you are thinking, though. Let me explain.
[..]
>killed the bug" OR "the bug which the child has killed" (ambiguous)
I would like to discuss this topic later.
>Resolve the ambiguity with the {-'e'} topic marker on the subject of
I know it and I did it in the sentence below.
>{Quch ghew HoHpu'bogh puq'e'} - "The child who has killed the bug is >happy."
>
>Yes, the word {Quch} is closer to the word {ghew} than the word
>{puq}, but that's ok. It is perfectly clear that it is the child
>that is happy. The whole relative clause is the subject of the verb >{Quch}.
Ahhh .. This is the point. If the subject has the
topic 'e' suffix, the it refers to the previous
sentence (in this case).
>>Quch puq'e' HoHpu'bogh ghew ? The child whom the bug
>>has killed is happy
>
>Right.
I was right here, but I didn't see it in the
sentece above .. Qu'vatlh!!!
Now this is clear for me.
>>but again, it could mean
>>"The child is happy whom the bug has killed"
>
>This isn't a valid sentence in English and I can't think of a valid
>sentence that means anything different from the first one.
Once again the topic 'e' makes the difference.
>The sentence says that 1. a child has killed a bug and 2. that
>child is happy. Pretty much any sentence in any language that
>expresses exactly that is a valid translation.
The sentence is not valid in portuguese too. But
I wanted to see all the possible variations and
understand the right one.
>> What can I do?
>
>I think that all that was an exercise in trying to get the verb
>{Quch} in the right place to say who is happy. Does sentence A solve
>your dilemna, or do you have more questions about it.
DaH qay'be'. I really like the solution.
>> If I use the Adverb, it could become easier:
>> Now, the child which has killed the bug is happy
>>
>>The 2 sentences:
>
>>1. The child has killed the bug (ghew HoHpu' puq)
>>2. Now, the child is happy (DaH Quch puq)
>>
>>At my point of view, "the child is happy **now**" and not
>>"the child has killed the bug **now**"
>
>Right. That's exactly why I moved the adverb in sentence A.
DaH Quch ghew HoHpu'bogh puq'e'
(Now, the child who has killed the bug is happy)
That's it?
>Both your English and Klingon have the same error
>in each sentence: the relative clause is just
>sitting there with no function in the
>sentence. I know it makes it extra hard for
My error was that I didn't noticed that the
relative sentence was the subject of the second.
So I was placing Quch in the end.
>both of us because we have to communicate through
>a language barrier even when we are using
>English. Sometimes I don't know if you have a
Although my "bridge" for klingon is the
English language, I can understand most of things.
Of course I'm not skilled in english, but I can
understand the most of things.
>small error in Klingon and mangled English, or
>a big misunderstanding in Klingon. I sometimes
No no .. I was looking for different positions
of the words to know exatly what they were meaning
>translate mistakes in Klingon into English to
>illustrate what is wrong with them, but that
>doesn't work when the person
>doesn't see what is wrong with the English!
For me, I learn best with the exemples. I'm
not sure who (voragh pagh charghwI') gave me
lot of useful exemples of using -pu' and -ta'
As I said, I wrote lot of sentences in order
to see their meaning. I only forgot that the
one was the subject of the other. :-((
>I wish I could translate this into Portuguese
>because I think it would have the same problem
>and then you would be able to see it. Either
It was an honor, but don't matter. The
portuguese verbal suffixes are terrible.
>that or Portuguese does
>something with relative clauses that English
>and Klingon simply don't.
No. They are quite the same. The problem
is the ghojwI''e' not the languages.
>By the way, all three of these sentences would
>work nicely if you had
>used {-mo'} instead of {-bogh}.
No doubt, but [-mo'] (here) refers to the
action while [-bogh] refers to the person (appositive).
Ex:
Jordan is happy because he has won the NBA seasons
Jordan, who has won the NBA season, is happy
>I don't think I've resolved this for you yet,
When you showed me that the relative was
the subject of the Quch, you solve my doubt.
Now, it's clear for me.
>but I'm not sure what to say. Follow up to this
>post, cutting it right down to just
>those things you don't understand, and try to
>explain. If you aren't sure if you understood
>something I wrote, tell me. I think I
>explained some things in complicated ways here.
Thanks a lot. So, I will only ask you to give
me more and more exemples. I know you are good in
this job. Seeing the exemples I can compare them
each other and understand their use.