tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Apr 01 07:52:43 2004

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: ghunchu'wI' QIn vIyajmeH QaH vIpoQbej./KLBC

Shamammd ([email protected]) 

In a message dated 4/1/2004 9:58:24 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
[email protected] writes:
OK, I have my hot chocolate. I'm ready... }}: )

> Although it (the verb {yIv} "to chew") wasn't listed in TKD as a slang
word, it might be found
> elsewhere; possibly  in KGT, since it is my understanding that a lot of
slang
> words are found there.

bIlughbej. pg 167.

> I think this should have been
> written: vIparHa'qu'mo' mu'tlheghlIj'e', vIlo' je.

This means "Because I like it, I will use *your sentence*" Punctuation
notwithstanding, it makes perfect sense. You wish to use the other person's
sentence (as opposed to your own) because you like it. Nothing wrong with
it.

> also i
> think i remember someone else telling me something very similar to what
you
> did about needing to use the noun on both sides of the sentence,

I'm not sure what you're speaking about, but the only thing a Klingon
sentence *needs* to have is a verb. Period. Everything else is gravy.

{jI'agh} "I'll demonstrate":

{vut} "He/she/it/they cook/s."
This single word, all on its own, is completely legal, and so is a sentence
in its own right.
Now, if you want to make it clear that is it a Romulan that is cooking:

{vut romuluSngan} "The Romulan/s cook/s"

More specific, but it does not invalidate the grammaticality of just plain
{vut}.

More gravy:

{ghevI' vut romuluSngan} "The Romulan prepares serpent worm sauce."

(Pun absolutely intended.) }}: )

All three above are legal Klingon sentences, including the one with no noun
in sight.

Is this what you were asking? Or have I missed the mark entirely?

--ngabwI'
Beginners' Grammarian,
Klingon Language Institute
http://kli.org/
HovpoH 701360.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

i am responding here since i was the one who wrote the original sentence. i 
am also in process of writing to you about other subjects i am having great 
dificulty with. but for now, lets do this one.

>I think this should have been
> written: vIparHa'qu'mo' mu'tlheghlIj'e', vIlo' je.

you replied:
>This means "Because I like it, I will use *your sentence*" Punctuation
>notwithstanding, it makes perfect sense.

what did you mean by "punctuation withstanding" and 
what is the difference in this and  the way i originally wrote it:

<mu'tlheghlIj vIparHa'qu'mo', vIlo' je.>

next question. i was told in an instant message by another friend that i 
should have used jIH in this sentence. as in:

vIparHa'qu'mo' mu'tlheghlIj'e', vIlo' je jIH. 

he said without it, it would mean:
also because i liked it, i  used your sentence . 
i wanted it to mean:
because i liked your sentence, i  also used it .

since there is no tenses in klingon, i understand how one can think in 
present tense as well as future. ok no problem. it basically means the same thing 
(thank god! lol) whether present or past or future tense is used. at least in 
this case i think so. 
my next question is about the placement of the word {je} within this sentence.

why wouldnt it be : 
vIparHa'qu'mo' mu'tlheghlIj'e', vIlo'  jIH je. Ha! i just figured out what 
you meant by punctiation! lol when he changed my sentence from <mu'tlheghlIj 
vIparHa'qu'mo', vIlo' je>. to vIparHa'qu'mo' mu'tlheghlIj'e' vIlo' je. he should 
have put the comma after vIparHa'qu'mo' ...instead of after the 
...mu'tlheghlIj'e'...

ok. back to the je placement. 
explain difference between <vIlo' je jIH> and <vIlo' jIH je>.

you mentioneed in a past post to me something along similar lines about my 
prior misusage of the word {neH}. i got it that depending on the placement of 
this word within a sentence it can mean different things. ok. is this the same 
thing with {je} then?

next question: yIv

i wrote: <vIta'pu'mo', qayIvbe' 'e' vItul> 
because i did this (accomplished it), i hope that i did not annoy/bother you.

it was suggested that maybe i should have said:
 "I hope that it doesn't bother / annoy you that I use / used your sentence." 
for clarity purposes i think.

how would i write this? like this: mu'tlheghlIj vIlo' 'e' nIyIvbe' 'e' vItul. 

i cant see where saying i hope that it doesnt bother you as opposed to i hope 
that i dont bother you would make a difference in the understanding of the 
use of the word {yIv} but ok. i will let you explain it to me as you see it.

next question: 

 i wanted to say "and there are not many of us", (learning this language)
but
 i wasn't sure about this construction: <<'ej maH law' tu'lu'be'.>> 
so i ended up using: <'ej  law'be'  maH> and we are not many. 

 nov wamwI':

> 'ej maH law' tu'be'lu'.
>
> I don't know though. It looks wierd to me. That doesn't mean it is wrong.
It
> just looks wierd.

SuStel

>The problem with both of these is that the object {maH} doesn't agree with
>the verb prefix (0).  

please explain this to me. i dont see a difference between <naDev puqloD 
tu'lu'. one finds/ discovers/ notices children around here. and  <maH law' 
tu'be'lu'.> one finds / discovers few of us here.   ( i do get the tu'be'lu' from the 
original idea i had of tu'lu'be'). it is beginning to sink in. lol 

I don't particularly like the construction {maH law'}
>anyway.  Here's my alternative:

>'ej malaw'be'
>and we are not many


is SuStel right about this? can u explain it to me please? about the ) prefix 
and the use of <malaw'be'> instead of < law'be' maH>. is it simply because we 
can use it liek this that we should? as in if it is easier to use it this way 
then do it? or is there a specific reason for it.


ok. im done. for now. you have a lot of explaining to do so good thing you 
got your chocolate with you. you are going to need the caffeine! lololol

reH taHjaj tlhIngan Hol!

weQqul
bIjatlhnISchugh, tlhIngan Hol yIjatlh!
HovpoH 701360.5
Stardate 4250.9

Back to archive top level