tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Oct 12 07:00:25 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: KLBC
- Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1998 10:00:21 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
- Priority: NORMAL
Okay, as Yet Another Former Beginner's Grammarian, I'll take a
stab at this. - charghwI' 'utlh
On Mon, 12 Oct 1998 05:38:01 -0700 (PDT) Thomas Staller
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Thomas 'oH pongwIj'e'.
> My name is Thomas.
This is fine. Some of us tend to use asterisks to mark things we
don't want someone foolishly trying to look up, though in this
case it is obvious enough that should not be a problem. You
might have seen this written as:
*Thomas* 'oH pongwIj'e'.
Another way of saying this, while confusing to some is:
jIHvaD *ThomaS* ponglu'.
The verb {pong) has only been shown to us in one example. In
that example, the item being named was shown as the indirect
object (in this case, {jIHvaD}). The name itself was the direct
object. The subject was the group who would call the indirect
object by the name which is the direct object. Since anyone in
general would call you "Thomas", that subject becomes the
generic "one", as in "One calls me 'Thomas'," which can also be
rephrased to: "I am called 'Thomas'."
Meanwhile, grammatically simpler and just as good is your own
choice to use the noun {pong} instead of the verb {pong}.
> wej thlIngan Hol vIjatlhlaHchu'be'. 'ach jIQap 'e' vInID.
> I don't speak Klingon well yet, but I attempt to succeed.
The period in the middle was not necessary, but this is fine.
Your translation missed only slightly, since the English says,
"I don't speak Klingon well yet," while the Klingon says, "I
can't speak Klingon clearly yet." Meanwhile, I can cut you that
much slack. The meaning is basically the same.
> jIghIQpa', Do'Ha' jabbI'IDghomvam vImejnISpu'.
> Unfortunately I needed to leave this newsgroup before I took a vacation.
There's a little controversy as to whether {mej} can take an
object. The definition gloss "leave, depart" doesn't really
sound like it can, and there are no examples of Okrand using it
with an object. I know he used it in TKW on page 79, but I can't
look that up right now, and I do know that I noted it as an
intransitive useage.
Anyway, you can work around this:
jIghIQpa', Do'Ha' jabbI'IDghomvamvo' jImejnISpu'.
Still, that's a small error and you did well.
> DaH vImuvqa'.
> Now I have rejoined it.
maj. bIcheghmo' jIbel.
> choqawbe' 'e' vIHar. 'ach tugh choSovbej.
> I believe you don't remember me, but you will certainly know me soon.
Again, when you use a conjunction, like {'ach}, you tie together
two sentences. You don't need a period before {'ach). You are
clearly doing well enough that you won't need KLBC on your posts
much longer.
> qaghelnIS.
We don't have an example yet, to my knowledge on how {ghel} is
used. I personally tend to use the gloss "ask (a question)" to
mean that the direct object would be a question, not the person
to whom that question is asked. I suspect that the difference
between {jatlh} and {ja'} is similar to the difference between
{ghel} and {tlhob}.
Meanwhile, you could be using the "shortcut" that allows you to
shorten what would more grammatically correctly stated:
SoHvaD jIghelnIS.
Meanwhile, I can't tell if you intentionally were using the
shortcut or if you thought this is just correct useage and the
direct object can be the person addressed. Even this may be
correct, but the evidence we have up to this point does not sway
me to this opinion.
> I just want to check, if I use the /wI'/ verb suffix correct in the
> following words:
> chenmoHlu'pu'wI' creation
> lInglu'pu'wI' product
We argued about {-lu'} and {-wI'} being combined on the same
word (I initially took your position on this) and the general
consensus was that it didn't work. {-wI'} refers to the subject
of the action. {-lu'} tells us that the subject is
inconsequential, vague or unknown. You are trying to use {-lu'}
to point {-wI'} to the object of the verb instead of the
subject. The group at large rejected that idea and Okrand has
given us no indication that this clever attempt to extend the
language works at all. Until he shows us otherwise, you can't do
this.
> lugh'a'?
ghobe. vallaw', 'ach Qapbe'.
> Qapla'
> Thomas
charghwI' 'utlh