tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Jun 15 06:22:24 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: List of Klingon fauna
bInonglaw'. roD bIQaghbe'. Just because ghunchu'wI' is typically
such a good example for beginners, I feel drawn to correct this
series of errors here so there won't be a wave of immitations by
those with less experience.
On Sun, 14 Jun 1998 21:29:35 -0700 (PDT) Alan Anderson
<[email protected]> wrote:
> ja' peHruS:
> >mu' {chalDep} vIchel. not lo'pu' MO, 'ach yajchu' Hoch 'e' vIHar.
>
> wa':
> mu'mey'e' lo'bogh Okrand much Voragh. latlh yIchelQo'.
>
> cha':
> QIjchu'be' <chalDep> 'e' vIHar jIH. chal luDabbej'a'? ghobe'!
Note that {Dab} is correctly used in the preceeding text and is
misused from this point forward. You don't need {-Daq} on the
place one lives for {Dab}, and you ESPECIALLY don't want {-Daq}
if you use prefixes which indicate that you are using the place
as the direct object.
> SorDaq Dab 'op.
Sor Dab 'op.
> yavDaq Dab 'op.
yav Dab 'op.
> qojDaq Dab 'op.
qoj Dab 'op.
> puvbe' 'op.
> chalDaq lulenglaH neH puvwI'mey.
chalDaq lenglaH neH puvwI'mey.
> pa' luDabqu'be'.
This one is sneaky in its weirdness. If you meant, "They do not
very much dwell in a room," then this is correct. Meanwhile, if
{pa'} is supposed to be "thereabouts", then it is an adverb
(chuvmey} and not a noun, so it can't be the direct object of
{Dab}. I'd either repeat {chal}, or omit it altogether. Using
{pa'} as some sort of locative pronoun replacing {chal} may make
sense in English, but it doesn't work in Klingon by any grammar
we've been shown yet.
> -- ghunchu'wI'
Again, I'm hesitant to even correct one whose skills with the
langauge are generally applied with a greater consistency than
my own, but I feel obliged to do so for the beginners (and I
feel doubly committed to be accurate while I do this, since
few things are more foolish than an innacurate correction, and
I've already done that enough for one lifetime).
charghwI'