tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Jan 31 17:36:33 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, 31 Jan 1998 17:35:31 -0800
At 03:22 98-01-27 -0800, edy wrote:
}nuja' Alan Anderson
}
}>Oops. I think Edy is confusing the "topic" suffix and the "previous sentence"
}>pronoun. They are spelled the same, but they are unrelated to one another.
}
}
} I'm not sure about that. Below, some sentences:
}
}QeH qama'pu' HoHpu'bogh loD'e'
}[The man who has killed the prisioners is angry]
maj.
}QeH qama'pu' HoHpu'bogh loD'e' 'e' vIlegh
}[I saw that the man who has killed the prisioners is angry]
majQa'.
}bIr nImbuS wejDaq Dujvetlh paw'bogh ghopDap'e'
}[The asteroid which collide that ship in Nimbus 3 is cold]
In English the object collided with is not the direct object of the verb,
and (p. 157 KGT) in Klingon all the participants in the collision are
subjects. See the discussion going on now on {-Daq} and {-bogh} for why
what you are attempting to do is beyond what I can give you more than
speculation on. I would translate your meaning with:
{nImbuS wejDaq paw' Dujvetlh ghopDap bIr'e' je}
Note that the type five noun suffix {-'e'} ends up on the verb because of
the rule in TKD 4.4, not because I have suddenly granted myself permission
to use it to emphasize a verb. Without the {-'e'} this sentence would
translate simply as: "That ship collided with a cold asteroid at Nimbus
III." The effect of the {-'e'} is to play up that it was the *cold
asteroid* that the ship collided with. Not quite the same emphasis but
conveys the same information, qar'a'?
}bIr nImbuS wejDaq Dujvetlh paw'bogh ghopDap'e' ja' QonoS
}[The newspaper report that the asteroid which collide that ship in Nimbus 3
is cold]
It is fine to at {ja' QonoS} after any valid sentence to add the meaning
"The journal reports that..." Note that in English a journal is also an
individual or group's recording of events; the Captain's Log would be a
QonoS. Don't depend on people understanding "newspaper." It might not even
mean that in Klingon. No reason to assume that QonoS has all the English
meanings of "journal."
}'IHqu' vutpa'Daq ghaHtaH be'Hom'e'
}[The girl in the kitchen is very beautiful]
Uh uh. You may not break up the OVS with a noun that is no part of it. Get
your {-Daq} to the front of the sentence.
{vutpa'Daq be'Hom 'IHqu' tu'lu'} There is a very beautiful girl in the kitchen.
}'IHqu' vutpa'Daq ghaHtaH be'Hom'e' 'e' wIQochbe'
}[We agree that the girl in the kitchen is very beautiful]
If the sentence were correct you could append {'e' wIQochbe'} to say we
agreed on it.
}jot vutpa' 'IHqu'Daq ghaHtaH be'Hom'e'
}[The girl in the very beautiful kitchen is calm]
Oh now I see what you are doing. This is back to terra incognita. You have
two main verbs in the sentence: the pronoun as to be and the jot, and you're
attempting to use {-Daq} on one of the nouns of a relative clause. There is
already a very interesting thread in progress on the topic of type-5 noun
suffixes on relative clauses. It's not something that I or anyone can cite
you a rule on. These are very ugly sentences, depending on pronoun as to be
when they could be recast without to be. Are your two weeks up already?
}Quch ghew HoHpu'bogh puq'e' 'e' vItul
}[I hope that the child who has killed the bug is happy]
majQa'.
} If my sentences are ok it's quite clear! But it works
}in simple sentences. If we make a complex sentence like:
I think it is clear to you. You just fell into a differnt, deeper trap
while attempting to sho it.
}The father of the child who has killed the bug in the kitchen is happy
}
}There is an ambiguity here: who killed the bug?
There is no ambiguity in English. The child killed the bug. If the father
had killed it, it could be punctuated like this, and then it would be ambiguous.
The father of the child, who has killed the bug in the kitchen, is happy
}
}Could I say (?):
}
}1. The father has killed the bug:
}Quch vutpa'Daq ghew HoHpu'bogh puq vav'e'
I don't like relative clauses with pronoun as to be. I am intrigued by the
various suggestions of what to do with {-Daq} on relative clauses, but I
accept none of them as material I can put in a KLBC. All I can say when you
do both at once is: Qo'!
}2. The child has killed the bug:
}vutpa'Daq ghew HoHpu' puq 'ej Quch vavDaj
majQa'.
}In second case, is it possible to write in 1 sentence?
It might be, but we're not sure how Klingon mental stacks work. The
following is a little speculative.
Quch ghew HoHpu'bogh puq vav
Same ambiguity as the English. Worse even, because grammatically it could
be the dead bug, the father or the child that is happy.
Quch ghew HoHpu'bogh puq'e' vav
"The father of the (child who has killed the bug) is happy." (child did killing)
It's possible this just comes out as "The child who has killed the bug is
happy. Father." But I'm assuming that the Klingon mind leans towards
parsing sense. There are other ways it could be ambiguous, too, if you
search, but same with most English sentences.
Quch ghew HoHpu'bogh puq vav'e'
"The father (of the child) who has killed the bug is happy" (father did killing)
This could *possibly* also be parsed as it being the bugs father that is
happy, but I don't think it works that way. That might be:
Quch ghew'e' HoHpu'bogh puq vav'e'
"The father of the bug the child killed is happy." (bug parents like to see
their offspring die?)
And to complete the variations:
Quch ghew'e' HoHpu'bogh puq vav
Definitely: "The bug that the child's father killed is happy."
}And about these:
}
}1. I hope that the child who has killed the bug, eat the food also.
} (I tried but .. failed) Soj Sop je, ghew HoHpu' puq'e', 'e' vItul
}
}2. That girl who was in the kitchen is sleeping in the room
} pa'Daq QongtaH vutpa'vo' be'Homvetlh
} or .. take down ...
} pa'Daq QongtaH vutpa'Daq ghaHpu'bogh be'Homvetlh
{-Daq ghaHpu'bogh} JUST SAY NO!
moHqu'.
vutpa'Daq tu'lu'pu' be'Hom. DaH pa'Daq Qong.
Now some examples without that horrid and questionable grammar.
ngoj ngat ngu'ta'bogh ngan'e' 'e' vISov
"I know that the inhabitant who identified the gunpowder is restless."
(Note that {-pu'} does not make identified past tense, it just makes it
complete before the restlessness. It could also be "I know that the
inhabitant who had identified the gunpowder was restless" or "I know that
the inhabitant who has identified the gunpowder will be (or is) restless" or
"I know that the inhabitant who will have identified the gunpowder will be
restless." The important thing is that the identification is complete
before the restlessness).
ngab ngat'e' ngu'ta'bogh ngan 'e' vIHarlaHbe'
"I can't believe that the gunpowder the inhabitant identified disappeared."
(The inhabitant identified it, then it disappeared, and I can't believe that.)
ngechDaq ngat ngu'ta'bogh ngan'e' tu'lu' 'e' qon novpu'.
"The aliens recorded that the inhabitant who had identified the gunpowder
was in the valley."
ngengDaq ngat'e' ngu'ta'bogh ngan tu'lu' 'e' legh ngong Sorghpu'bogh tej'e'
"The scientist who had sabotaged the experiment saw that the gunpowder the
inhabitant had identified was in the lake."
Hope that helps. Write some more. Anyone who thinks that he or she might
just be starting to 'get this' should write some. Anyone I've confused
should write back.
DO NOT use pronoun as object or locatives in the relative clause. It's just
trouble you don't need. Don't nest {-bogh} clauses to be clever. I know
you're clever. Prove it by writing clear relative clauses. Except
ghunchu'wI'. I know he is going to do it anyway and will provide AMPLE
demonstration of what it does to your mental stack.
Qov [email protected]
Beginners' Grammarian