tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Dec 30 11:39:59 2003

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: KLBC boghmo' 'IHrIStoS malop

Scott Willis ([email protected]) [KLI Member] [Hol po'wI']

Excellent! Something to sink my teeth into....

> Philip:
> 'IHrIStoS
> Christ

Be careful with trying to transliterate non-Klingon words. Simply stick the
English (or in this case, Greek?) word into the sentence. You provided a
translation, which helped immensely, but it did throw me for a loop for a
couple of seconds, and I suspect that it did others, as well.
Beginners tend to try to look up every word, and I could not find
{'IHrIStoS} in my dictionaries.

<pause BG> I'm guessing that you were going for "christos", Greek for
"savior", and the basis for His name in English. Since the "kr" consonant
cluster violates Klingon phonology, and is at the same time common in
on-screen Klingon names, MO has given us a work-around. He has used {Q} to
indicate this:

{QaS} "Kras"
{Qel} "Krell"
{Qugh} "Kruge"
{valQIS} "Valkris"
(All in TKD, pg 58)

So you could use {QIStoS} for this purpose.
Another possibility: you could say something like {toDwI'ma'} "Our Savior".

And you would use these on this board only after explaining what the word
indicates, just as you did for your wife's name, {Hov} "Stella".</pause>

> Philip:
> jaj cha'maH loS...
> On the twenty-fourth...

MO has given us a way to refer to Terran dates, from the "Star Trek: The
Experience" grand opening:
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
                           **** tlhIngan De' ****

   tera' poH jaj wa', jar wa', jaj loSDIch, DIS wa'-Hut-Hut-chorgh:
HovpoHvetlh latlh nab yIHutlh...

   Save this Stardate: Sunday, January 4, 1998
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Based on this, your "timestamp" should read:
{jaj cha'maH loSDIch}
"On the twenty-fourth day"

> Philip:
> nuSuchmo' ghoS Hov be'nI', Hov me' je
> Stella's sister and aunt came to visit us.

{-mo'}"because", as a suffix, is used to indicate a reason for the event in
the main clause to happen. Your sentence says "Because they visit us,
Stella's sister and aunt approach."
{-meH}"in order to" fits much better here:

{nuSuchmeH, ghoS Hov be'nI', Hov me' je.}
"Stella's sister and aunt came to visit us."

> Philip:
> pa'vamDaq 'oHtaH Sor 'ej Sorvam bIngDaq bIHtaH nobmey.
> we had a tree there and had presents underneath the tree.

When you use the pronouns as verbs, you must mark the subject with {-'e'}:
{nuqDaq 'oH puchpa''e'?}"Where is the bathroom?" (TKD pg 170)
{veQDuj 'oH DujlIj'e'} "You ship is a garbage scow" (TKD pg 171)

Your sentence should read:
{pa'vamDaq 'oHtaH Sor'e' 'ej Sorvam bIngDaq bIHtaH nobmey'e'.}

Also, we know that the plural suffices are never required, esp. when another
sentence element indicates plurality. Your use of {nobmey} above is still
completely correct, but you don't have to add it if you don't want to. }}: )

> Philip:
> meqvammo' qaStaHvIS jaj cha'maH vagh po nobmey manobchuq[1].
> So for this reason, we exchanged presents on the morning of the
twenty-fifth.
>
> [1] Not sure whether the "prefix trick" can be stretched like this. My
> intention was to say "we gave gifts to one another", so I included an
> explicit object as well as using ma-chuq "we-one another".

I see your reasoning for using the prefix trick, but I think you're probably
right; I don't think the trick can be stretched like this, either.

Number one: The prefix trick involves verb *prefices* that indicate first
and second person subjects AND objects. (It doesn't work with third person
because of the extensive ambiguity issues.) The prefix in this case is
{ma-}, which indicates no object. The only indication of an object comes
from the {-chuq} "reflexive plural object" *suffix*. The prefix trick does
not apply, because the object in this case is indicated by a suffix, not a
prefix. In other words, it's the "prefix trick", not the "suffix
trick." }}: )

Number two: I know of two examples of the prefix trick from canon, right off
the top of my head, both from PK:

{ro'qegh 'Iw chab HInob} "Give me the Rokeg Blood Pie"
{ghIchwIj DabochmoHchugh, ghIchlIj qanob.} "If you shine my nose, I'll give
you your nose."

Neither of these involve type one suffices.

Going strictly from the canon we have so far, I would say no, this sentence
doesn't work.

> Philip:
> If not, how
> to express this? I don't think there's a way to say "one another" except
> with -chuq, but we didn't give one another, we gave *to* one another, so
> it'd have to be something that can combine with -vaD, presumably.

You're absolutely right! {-vaD} marks the benificiary of the action:

{yaSvaD taj nobpu' qama'} "The prisoner gave the officer the knife." (TKD,
pg 180)

You can use {-vaD} with pronouns, too.
So your sentence should read:
{maHvaD nob DInob.}
"We gave gifts to us."
I know it sounds a little clunky in English, but I'm positive this is the
way to express this. }}: )

And everything else looks good. {majQa'!}

--ngabwI'
Beginners' Grammarian,
Klingon Language Institute
http://kli.org/
HovpoH 700978.9

Back to archive top level