tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Aug 31 06:08:33 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC - jImugh 'e' jInIDlI' 'a Qatlh
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: KLBC - jImugh 'e' jInIDlI' 'a Qatlh
- Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1998 09:08:30 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
- Priority: NORMAL
On Sat, 29 Aug 1998 23:51:47 -0700 (PDT) Sarah Andeen
<[email protected]> wrote:
> lab tuv'el:
>
> >KLBC - jImugh 'e' jInIDlI' 'a Qatlh
...
> >ja' pagh:
> >> jIyev je jIH jay'! 'ej jabbI'IDlIjDaq Dachmo' loQ jIbIt. rIntaHmo'
> >> Dajoy'lu'meH poH nI', HujchoHlaw' 'u'maj. tugh choH'e' wIlajchu' 'e'
> >> vIpIH.
> >TRANS: I damn well paused also! And because it was absent on your
> >transmission I was a little uneasy. Because it was done for you were
> >tortured a long time, our universe became strange. I expect we will
> >soon accept the change completely.
>
> Close. The only thing you didn't quite get was a tough sentence: <rIntaHmo'
> Dajoy'lu'meH poH nI',... <Dajoy'lu'meH poH nI'> means "the long period of your
> torture". So the full clause reads "Because the long period of your torture
> is over, …" Also note the <-taH> in there for emphasis.
It is worth pointing out that this solves one of the little
{-meH} problems that arrises so often. For a long time, I used
{-meH} to modify verbs and never understood the way it can work
with nouns. In fact, this example could have been expressed
almost as well with {-meH} modifying the verb:
Dajoy'lu'meH nI'pu'mo' poH, HujchoHlaw' 'u'maj.
Meanwhile, there are times when using {-meH} on the verb
really doesn't work well at all. As an example:
*wanI' vIDelmeH, mu'mey vIHutlh.*
This sounds like my lacking words somehow forwards the mission
of describing the event. You can make an English translation
that sounds sensible, but it misses the real grammatical
function of the {-meH} clause. Meanwhile, we can write something
that makes less sense in English, but more sense in Klingon:
wanI' vIDelmeH mu'mey vIHutlh.
It doesn't look much different, does it? Well, dropping the
comma means that you can interpret the noun clause to be:
wanI' vIDelmeH mu'mey = The "in-order-that-I-describe-the-event"
words. "I lack the 'in order that I describe the envent' words."
While this sounds weird in English, it actually makes more sense
in Klingon. What words do I lack? I lack the one which describe
the event. It would probably be fine also as:
wanI' DelmeH mu'mey vIHutlh.
In fact, I think I like this wording a little better. Or even:
wanI' Dellu'meH mu'mey vIHutlh.
Yes. This phrasing makes the most sense to me. I lack the words
ANYBODY could use to describe the event. The subject of {Del} is
insignificant. Okrand typically omits {-lu'} in cases like this,
however and simply gives the {-meH} verb without a prefix.
The reason this attaching the {-meH} clause to the noun is so
much better than the original attachment of it to the verb is
that I am not lacking the words in order to describe the event;
my lacking them does not aid the mission of describing the
event. Meanwhile, I am lacking the words which would describe
the event.
Klingon doesn't have an "irrealis". It has no equivalent to the
English word "would". We have to find a different tool. In this
case, that tool is the {-meH} clause describing the noun which
is lacked instead of the verb {Hutlh}.
I hope I'm making sense here. Anyway, I wanted to bring this up
because it is the area of Klingon grammar that I have most
recently found to be refreshing in its ability to express
something that was previously challenging for me to recast into
a clear meaning.
> pagh
> Beginners' Grammarian
charghwI'