tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Sep 11 10:39:38 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: Practice with -meH
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: KLBC: Practice with -meH
- Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 13:37:56 -0400 (EDT)
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]> from "Andeen, Eric" at Sep 8, 98 00:16:55 am
According to Andeen, Eric:
...
> >>>> The bird of prey didn't have enough power to raise shields.
> >>> botjan chu'meH HoS yap Hutlh toQDuj.
> >>
> >> majQa'. pup.
Note that {botjan chu'meH} may here be modifying either {HoS}
or {Hutlh}, but it makes more sense modifying {HoS}. The bird
of prey lacks enough in-order-to-engage-the-shields power. That
is more meaningful than the idea that somehow the lacking of
enough power is an action done for the purpose of raising the
shields. That is weird.
> > I also like to avoid overworking {ghaj}, but {Hutlh} seems to have
> > the same problem for me. Here's my phrasing for this sentence:
> >
> > botjan chu'meH yapbe' toQDuj HoS.
This is exactly the kind of phrasing I detest. For some reason,
the being insufficient is accomplished for the purpose of
engaging the shields. Yuck. Don't forget that {-meH} can be
used to modify nouns, yielding far more clear meaning:
yapbe' toQDuj botjan chu'meH HoS.
"The in-order-to-engage-the-BoP's-shields power is insufficient."
It looks weird in English, but it makes a LOT more sense in
Klingon.
> I don't think there's anything wrong with this use of <Hutlh>. <ghaj> often
> gets stretched beyond its real meaning because the English "have" is so
> broad, but I don't think that is the case here. As a matter of style, it's
> never a bad idea to avoid <ghaj> and <Hutlh> when possible, and your
> sentence is at least as good, but there is nothing wrong with the setnence
> tuv'el came up with.
Well, actually, I think tuv'el's sentence is a lot better,
since it can be interpreted in a way that makes sense. In both
these cases, the action of lacking or being insuffient is not
done for the purpose of engaging the shields. Instead, it is
better to describe the purpose of the noun, not the verb. The
noun, "power", has the purpose, not the verbs "lack" or "be
insuffient". See? {-meH} is much better applied to the nouns
here than to the verbs.
> pagh
> Beginners' Grammarian
charghwI'