tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Jan 24 22:24:20 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC Poetry (the child is happy)
- From: Qov <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: KLBC Poetry (the child is happy)
- Date: Sat, 24 Jan 1998 22:23:21 -0800
At 20:04 98-01-22 -0800, edy wrote:
}>>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 have to wrinkle my nose at the use of {-Daq} to mean "into a language."
Even metaphorically, that's not a physical location.
Perhaps: {mu'tlheghvam vImughmeH tlhIngan Hol vIlo'qang ...}
}(I am willing to translate this sentence into klingon,
}but my head is overheating) :-))
jIHagh.
}>>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 still don't understand what you were doing, but if you were predicting it
was wrong and it was and that makes you happy, then yIHem.
}>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.
Yes, I was explaining that step by step for the benefit of other people who
could learn from what you were doing. I try to make explainations useful
for more than one person.
}>{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).
yay! I hoped that was the point you needed.
}>>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.
Fair enough.
}>> 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?
HIja'! majQa'. ghojmeH mIwlIj vIyajbe' 'ach Daghojta'mo' jIQuch.
}>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.
jIbel. rut qajangtaHvIS jIyep 'ach rut jIyepHa'. qamISmoH vIneHbe'.
} For me, I learn best with the exemples. I'm
}not sure who (voragh pagh charghwI') gave me
That would be {Voragh charghwI' ghap}. When you use "or" to join nouns the
word is {ghap} and it goes after all the nouns.
}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. :-((
A good exercise. chaq vIyajchoH.
}>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.
jImon. wot mojaqmeylIj mIgh vIghoj vIneHbe'!
}>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.
qaybe' ghojwI''e'. qay' yajchuqghachmaj neH.
} 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.
I'll remember that.
But now you have to translate ...
A stone in the way is preferable to a stone in my shoe.
:)
Qov [email protected]
Beginners' Grammarian