tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Jul 17 14:37:23 1998

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: KLBC - puqbe'oywI'

---Burt Clawson  wrote:
>
> KLBC - puqbe'oywI'
> 
> 
> Perfective!  to /-pu/ or not to /-pu/
> 
> > spelling: /bogh/.  You happen to have lucked out here with the
> > perfective: Klingons state when they were being born by saying when
> > they had been born.  So if your ten years old you say wa'maH ben
> > jIboghpu', because your tenth birthday has occurred, so ten years
ago
> > you had already been born.  It's the completion of the birth process
> > that's the point, one presumes.
> 
> wa'Hu' Do Qe'Daq jIjaH 'ej ghaytan wa'leS jIjaHqa'.  "I went to the
fast
> food restaurant yesterday, and I'll probably go again tomorrow."

majQa'.

> jaghma' rap DaHoHta'DI', HIja'.  "When you have killed our common >
enemy,  tell me."

I'm not positive that /jaghma' rap/ would be understood as "common
enemy", but that's a good use of perfective to indicate completion of
a future event.  

> wa'les jIboghpu'be' 'e' DaSov.  "You know I wasn't born yesterday."

jIHaghbe'laHbe'.  You've said that you won't have been born tomorrow. 
If you had said wa'Hu' instead of wa'leS you'd have said that you had
not been born yesterday, i.e. that as of yesterday you still weren't
born.  So you must have been born today, or not yet!  An excellent
example of an exact translation that doesn't work in all contexts.

In fact, a closer translation of "I wasn't born yesterday" would be
<wa'Hu' jIboghpu'> "I was born yesterday" meaning that you were
already born yesterday  -- and thus weren't given birth to yesterday. 
Neat, eh?

Think of <be born> in the way you think of <be dead>.  We don't have a
verb in Klingon for "be dead," but the perfective of die serves that
purpose.  /wa'Hu' Heghbe'pu' SuvwI'/ "The warrior wasn't dead
yesterday" implies that the warrior is still alive, or died today.
"Kennedy was dead at the start of the Gulf War" indicates that the
president died before that war.  It doesn't imply that he died at that
time. Perhaps /bogh/ would be better translated as "become born" and
/boghpu'/ as "be already born."

wa'Hu' Hegh - He died yesterday.

wa'Hu' Heghpu' - He was dead yesterday (had already died).

wa'Hu' bogh - He was born yesterday. (actually emerged from his
mother's womb on that date)

wa'Hu' boghpu' - He was born yesterday. = He had been born yesterday. 
(He was already out of the womb on that date).

yatlhqu' be'nalwI'. ghaytan wejmaHleS boghpu' puqma'. - My wife is
extremely pregnant. Our child will likely be born in the next month.

ghaytan wejmaHleS bogh - The due date is one month from now.

Also watch your spelling: /wa'leS/.
 
> > Try writing this as, "I am impatient because she grows up slowly."
 or
> > "I am impatient while I wait for her to grow up."
> 
> jIHem QIt nenchoHlI'mo' ghaH.

/Hem/ is actually "be proud": you forgot which verb meant what.
Ignoring that, the first sentence is ok.  It would probably be better
if the /-mo'/ clause were first, putting the adverb at the beginning
of the sentence.

> nenchoHlI'meH ghaH'e' jIloStaHvIS jIHem.

Are you really waiting "for the purpose" of her growing up?  It
doesn't work for me.  The "for" in "wait for" is not the "for" in "for
the purpose of."  After all, /loS/ means "wait for" and what you are
waiting for is /nenchoHlI'/.  Sounds like SAO.  Think about:

nenchoHlI' ghaH 'e' vIloSmo' jIboH
lit: "I'm impatient because I'm waiting for her to be growing up."

Does that express your meaning?  (You can't actually translate "while
I wait for" because that involves a type-7 after /'e'/.

> > > jIHemqu' ben yab ghaHDI'
> > >
> > >  I will be so proud when she is
> > > old enough and can receive her jInaq."
> >
> > Hmm, this is hard to parse.
> >
> > jIHemqu' - I will be so proud
> > ben yab ghaHDI' - when she is a years ago mind
> >
> > Better tell me where you were going with this one.  I see a possible
> > typo for /yap/ and what looks like an attempt to extract the concept
> > of 'be old' out of 'years old', and what looks like the Klingon
> > re-creation of an English idiom "be years old."   But you wouldn't
do
> > these things, would you?
> Yup, I meant /yap/.  Now that I am looking at it more closely, I can
see
> why it was so confusing.  
> I was trying for something like, "When she is of sufficient age."  
> Maybe something with /qan/?  

Well, /qan/ is actually "be old" and the longest you can keep your
daughter from dating is probably 18, so /qan/ probably isn't the best
choice.  You could say /nenchoHpu'DI'/  "when she has become an adult."

> How do you get across the
> idea of "be old enough?"  

Old enough for what?  :)  Or just say "when she is ready to receive a
jinaq."

> Can a verb modify another verb directly?  (i.e.
> qan yap).

Not in anything we've seen or heard of. When placed after the word it
modifies, English "enough" is an adverb.  We know no Klingon adverb
that does that job, and while some Klingon verbs can act as adjectives
(modifying nouns) they don't act as adverbs (modifying verbs).

If I were a native speaker of Klingon I'd just tell you the way I'd
express that sentiment, but I'm not, so all I can tell you is that you
have to throw out all the English vocabulary about "old" and "enough,"
and try to find a way to express it using Klingon rules.  Some people
try to do something with /be'/ woman, but because /be'/ refers to
females in general, you can't usefully talk about "becoming a be'"
outside of the context of sex change surgery.  A few possibilities ...

vIvoqchoHlaHDI' ...
wa'maH vagh ben boghpu'DI' ...
nayrupchoHDI' ...

- wa'Hu' boghpu'bogh Qov
==
Qov - Beginners' Grammarian 

_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

Back to archive top level