tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Aug 29 17:22:29 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: qatlh Qapbe'choH DaH De'wI'mey? :-)
In article <[email protected]>,
William H. Martin <[email protected]> writes
[snip]
>I will certainly accept criticism afterwards if this is a poor
>choice on my part. I just honestly think sometimes we expect too
>much of the BG. As a sidenote, for real KLBC stuff, it is
>generally considered to be proper to include English
>translations for all of your stuff so the BG doesn't have to
>guess what you are saying. In this case, you speak clearly
>enough that this is not so much of an issue... which lends all
>the more evidence to the idea that it should not be KLBC.
I've got no problem here whatsoever, as long as pagh hasn't. I wasn't
sure if I was still writing KLBC-worthy stuff... if you think I'm beyond
that, I'll drop KLBC and let pagh get on with his real business. :)
I've pruned KLBC from the subject of this response so it doesn't trigger
pagh's mail filters.
>> [Couple of vocab queries, too. I've used:
>>
>> {DaH De'wI'mey} =~ network
>
>I'd suggest {De'wI'mey DaH} might be better.
luq.
I suspected I'd done this the wrong way round. :|
[snip]
>> wej DaHHommeyDaq De'wI'mey DIlan.
>
>I want to make a comment which is NOT a criticism. Just in case
>you didn't know, you could also have stated this as:
>
>wej DaHHomDaq De'wI' DIlan.
>
>When you preceed a noun with a number, it is obviously plural,
>so you really don't need a plural suffix.
I'm vaguely aware of the rule, but since I still consider my Klingon to
be pretty mediocre, I'd like to get the basic grammar down first before
I start getting into the nitty-gritty of style. :)
[snip]
>> {DaHHom wa'} vInuD. DaHHomvamDaq,
>> latlh De'wI'vaD QumlaH De'wI'. 'ach {DaHHom cha'}Daq De'wI' QumlaHbe'
>> {DaHHom wa'}Daq De'wI'.
>
>I see what you are trying to do here, but you have to realize
>that locatives relate to the VERB, not to any NOUN. You can't
>refer to a computer that belongs to subnet one as {DaHHom wa'Daq
>De'wI'}. As soon as you put {-Daq} on a noun, it's grammatical
>function is to tell you where the action of the verb occurs. If
>you drop the {-Daq}, you actually get the function you want,
>because it then becomes "a computer of subnet one" or "subnet
>one's computer".
Aha. This explains a /lot/ for me. I just asked a question about Daq on
a noun-noun construction... which is now complete rubbish given my new
understanding of this.
I guess something like DaHHom cha' De'wI' is a 'nested' noun-noun
construction... { {DaHHom cha'} De'wI' }. I had no idea that could be
done. :)
>> vaj latlh chamwI' vISam. ghu' wIja'chuq.
>
>You can't use the prefix {wI-} with the suffix {-chuq}. By all
>indications, {ja'chuq} is not a root verb, despite its entry in
>the dictionary. It is almost certainly {ja'} plus {-chuq}. A
>better way to say this is: {maja'chuq. ghu' wIqel.}
luq. jIyaj.
>> De'wI''a'mey pa' wI'el. Qap De'wI''a'mey 'e' DIbejqu'mo'...
>
>The object of {bej} here is {'e'}, which is singular.
HIvqa' veqlargh. {Qap De'wI''a'mey 'e' wIbejqu'mo'.}
>> Hemey lo'bogh De' DInuD.
>
>Interesting. You used the plural suffix to indicate that you are
>examining the paths and not the data. Clever. I've never seen
>this done before, but it works for me.
Well, it seemed logical at the time. {Hemey lo'bogh De'} = the routes
that the data uses; {DInuD} = we examine them.
I'd have considered, in my lack of knowledge, ?*{Hemey lo'bogh De'
wInuD} to be wrong... {Hemey lo'bogh} appears redundant if we're only
examining the data.
>> He ghorpu' wISamta'.
>
>Either you are talking about surfaces capable of using language,
>or you have two main verbs with no established grammar to
>explain why. I'm guessing that you either omitted {-bogh} on
>{ghorpu'} or you omitted {'e'} between these two verbs. I'd
>favor the latter.
Indeed. Even better might be {ghorpu' He 'e' wISamta'}. (We located the
broken cable.) :)
>> latlh He wIlo'moH DaH.
>
>Okay, first, this is controversial grammar. I'm comfortable with
>it, but some others object. We do not have perfect agreement on
>how to handle {-moH} added to a verb that already had a direct
>object.
I think I see where the controversy lies. "wIlo'moH" + an explicit
direct object implies that there's another pronoun around there
somewhere. The above sentence was intended to say "We caused a new cable
to be used" (in the absence of a verb 'to replace'), but since the
passive voice is pretty awkward to express, the 'literal' translation
comes out as 'We caused it to use a new cable'. The 'it' is the odd
pronoun.
>That said, if you assume that the person doing the using is the
>indirect object, and that the thing being done is the direct
>object and that the one causing the doing is the subject, and
>you are using the prefix shortcut so you don't use {maHvaD},
>then the prefix should be {nu-}, not {wI-}.
Maybe {DaHvaD latlh He wIlo'moH} might parse better... this states
explicitly the indirect object (the benefactor of the action, in this
case the network/array), and removes the ambiguity of the second
unstated object in the original sentence. Now, the sentence is "We
caused the network to use a new cable."
Or should it be {DaHvaD He wItammoH} lit. "We caused the cable to be
exchanged for the benefit of the network." [This strikes me as possibly
less controversial...]
Yuck.
(Did any of that ramble make sense, and does it fit into what we know
already about Klingon grammar? Or am I just plain wrong? :))
>> qay'be'choH DaH 'e' wIQub. 'ach mamuj. labHa'taH DaH. mamogh. {wejpuH
>> jay'!} jIjatlh.
>
>bImoghba'.
>
>> DaH'a' De'wI'mey vInaw'. latlh De' vIghajnIS, 'ach pagh lI' vItu'.
>
>Again, you have two main verbs with no grammar holding them
>together. I think you need {'e'} between {lI'} and {vItu'}.
I think I did the same thing as I did earlier. Maybe {... 'ach lI' pagh
'e' vItu'} is better.
>> vaj pa'vetlh vInuDqa'. ghumHom vIQoylaH. "SaHbe' DaH! jabbI'IDmey
>> vIngeHlaHbe'!" jatlh De'wI''a'. jImISqu'. rarwI'mey nuDmeH, De'wI''a'
>> vIluH. "Daj. De' He tu'lu'be'! nuqDaq 'oH De' He'e'?!" jIjat. rav vInuD.
>> "Ahhh, pa'Daq De' He' tu'lu'!" jIjatlh...
>
>I suspect you are using {pa'} to mean "there" and not the noun
>"room". You should not then use {-Daq} on it.
Oops. *engraves on memory... inherent locatives do NOT take -Daq*
>> qatlh Qapbe'choH DaH De'wI'mey? chIch De'wI'mey ghorlaH SaymoH'wI'mey.
>> reH Sengqu' SaymoH'wI'mey! :)
>
>tIHoH.
{De' Hemaj Daghorta', DaH monglIj wIghor!}
Sounds like a good exchange. ;-)
--
qonwI'