tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Jul 11 20:40:36 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: An idea for a HolQeD competition
ja' "Anthony Appleyard" <[email protected]>:
> poHmey ngo' DuSaQmeyDaq "Caesar adsum jam forte" [1] / "Caesar had some jam
>for tea" England Hol / Latin Hol rurbogh mu' Quj 'e' Sovlu'chu'.
"One completely knows that in old time-periods' schools a word's game which
resembles [...]'s English/Latin." nuqjatlh?
I *think* you're talking about the similarity in sounds between two phrases
in different languages, but I have no idea what you're saying about it.
> HolQeD paqHomvaD (competition) qech 'ey bIH'a' England Hol / tlhIngan Hol
>rurbogh mu' Qujmey'e'?
"Are word's games which resemble English/Latins tasty competition ideas for
linguistics' pamphlet?" If you're referring to the KLI's journal, just call
it by name; adding the {paqHom} is very distracting. And the verb {'ov} is
rather good for expressing the idea of a competition. You seem quite skilled
at turning every sentence of yours into a "to be" with lots of nouns, but it
makes reading them somewhat of a chore. I think you would benefit from some
practice in using real verbs.
As for your suggestion, it does sound like a nifty idea. We've done things
like that on occasion anyway. Seqram's "veins reside in a great mind" comes
to mind as the best recent example of this in Klingon.
> [1] = Caesar, naDev DaH 'ebmo' jIH
"Caesar, I am because of an opportunity here now." I'm not familiar with
either this phrase or Latin in general, but the Klingon grammar is faulty.
I don't know whether you merely got the word order wrong or whether you're
trying to mirror an unusal phrasing in the Latin, but it needs to be
{'ebmo' DaH naDev jIH} "I am now here because of an opportunity."
> DaH 'eybe' rurbogh mu' Qujvam, rapbe' DISmey ngo' DuSaQ Latin jatlhghach
>QIchmey DISmeyvam DuSaQ Latin jatlhghach QIchmey je.
"Now this word's game which resembles it is not tasty, old years' school's
Latin speakness speaking sounds and these years' school's Latin speakness
speaking sounds are not the same." I'm basing the placement of "and" on
the parallelism in the last bunch of nouns there, but no matter where I
try it, it still doesn't make much sense to me.
> OK, that last sentence is queryable,
For that last sentence to be queryable, I'd have to understand it first.
Maybe I've gotten lazy, but I'm not willing to spend the effort to figure
out what you were thinking based on what you actually wrote. If you want
intelligent queries from me, you might have to write it again in English.
>but how to express `pronunciation'
>clearly here without letting a {-ghach} in?
The word {QIch} works fine by itself to refer to the sounds made when
speaking. That's how it's defined! If you need to refer specifically
to "speaking correctly" as a noun, {jatlhchu'ghach} might be okay, but
{QIch lugh} or even {QIch pup} seems to fit the idea better.
>When CAN {-ghach be used}
>properly??? Why have {-ghach} in the grammar book if it can hardly ever be
>used?
It can be used properly when you need a noun that refers to a verb that has
a suffix on it. Putting it on a bare verb sounds really weird, the way I
used the word "speakness". It carries enough meaning that the idea can get
through, but it's an exceedingly odd way to say it.
>In another way to express this sentence, I needed a generalized
>adverbial to say "differently from".
Whatever is wrong with {jaS}? Your fixation on "generalized adverbials"
has apparently blinded you to the existence of specific ones.
-- ghunchu'wI'