tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Nov 03 13:29:33 1999

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

KLBG Re: Some questions

On Wed, 03 Nov 1999 12:27:36 -0800 Ben Gibson 
<[email protected]> wrote:

> > > 3) does this make any sense?
> > >
> > > “bIralchugh, pagh DarIn jatlh SoSwI’”
> > 
> > My mom says that you can't finish anything if you are violent.
> > [Is this like having her say that you can't have desert if you
> > don't finish your vegetables?]
> 
> jIHagh. ghobe'. "can't," I don't understand. I avoided -laH
> in the above. I thought I was saying "you finish nothing"
> (pagh Data' might be closer to what I want.)

You are right. I just read it quickly and given that a mother 
was saying it, I expected {-laH}. HIvqa' veqlargh.
 
> > > “toH. ‘e’ luSovchugh [Carthage] veng vavpu' ([Carthage]
> > > DevwI’pu'), Quch, vIbej*. qatlh ‘oH ja’be’ SoSlI’. qatlh ‘oH
> > > tIja’be’.
> > 
> > [Note that it is a bad thing to insert sentences between {'e'}
> > and the two sentences linked by it. The {toH.} here is probably
> > not a good thing.] "So. If the fathers and leaders of the city
> > of Carthage and a forehead knows this, I am sure it." [This
> > seems a bit odd.] [The next sentence is unintelligible, since I
> > know of no way to combine a imperative command and a question,
> > as you have done, and gain any meaning out of it, plus you've
> > used {-be'} instead of {-Qo'} in with a verb with an imperative
> > prefix. I'm guessing you didn't mean to use {tI-} and perhaps
> > instead meant to use {cho-} meaning "Why didn't you tell me
> > this?"
> 
> Quch - (v) (be) happy. He/she/it or They be happy. That part
> I was sure I got right. Obviously I didn't make that verb
> distinguished enough. (sigh)

It is set apart by commas with no obvious function in the larger 
sentence, which seems to be more than one sentence joined by a 
comma with no conjunction. Perhaps if you put {vaj} in front of 
{Quch} and then replaced the comma following {Quch} with the 
word {'e'}, this would make sense.
 
> qatlh 'oH Daja'be' is closer to what I meant. But I wanted
> to ephasise "why don't YOU tell them". Well obviously THAT
> won't work. (qatlh 'oH Daja'be' jIH, I don't think works
> either. Am I wrong in that regard as well?)
> > 
> > > “qaHagh! Qaw’pu [Carthage], luSov Hoch.”
> > 
> > "I laugh you. Carthage has destroyed, everybody knows it."
> 
> Actually, It is supposed to be choHagh. Again I wasn't sure
> if that would work and hoping that someone would address it.

I can't see {Hagh} taking a direct object. It means "laugh", not 
"laugh at". While some like to just use intransitive verbs 
transitively and claim that nothing says that you can't, the 
problem is that there is a special relationship between verbs 
and the limited set of nouns that can behave as their direct 
object. For {bav}, the direct object is the thing the subject is 
going around.

So, if you assume that {Hagh} can take a direct object, then 
what is that relationship? Is it who or what you laugh at? Is it 
who you laugh with? Is it the joke? Is it the location? From the 
definition, there's no way to discern this. The only way you can 
work with the current definition is to not use a direct object 
with {Hagh}. You have to think about meaning and available 
tools. {jItlhaQmo' bIHagh.}

> Also, I am confused by your use of "has" above. And I
> suspect it is the same problem between transitive and
> intransitive verbs, that I am having. How do you tell which
> verbs are which? 

The definition of Qaw' is "destroy". This is not the same thing 
as "be destroyed". These concepts are not interchangable. If you 
want to say "the city is destroyed", then you don't say {Qaw' 
veng}. You say {veng Qaw'lu'.} See? The city is not the subject 
of destruction. It is the object of destruction.

Some Klingon verbs have the passive sense, like {Dal}. That 
means "be boring". It doesn't mean "be bored". Both of these 
concepts have to do with the verb "bore" but the relationship 
between the verb and its subject is quite different. One of the 
main functions of a verb is to explain the relationship between 
the subject and an oject, if there is one. You seem to be 
ignoring that relationship.
 
> > Okay. Though this doesn't say KLBC, I'm judging by the nature of
> > the errors so far, this is something pagh likely would prefer to
> > handle...
> 
> Still qatlho'. choQaHqu'. jItljetlh vIQub. 

I probably should be able to guess what you were trying to say, 
but I can't.

> 'ach ngoQwIj 'oH
> Hop. jISuv, jIluj, jIghojtaH.

yInIDtaH. bIDub'eghbejtaH.
 
> > charghwI'
> 
> Ben (DraQoS)

charghwI'

Back to archive top level