tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Apr 01 11:41:47 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

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

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2004 10:51 AM
Subject: Re: ghunchu'wI' QIn vIyajmeH QaH vIpoQbej./KLBC


> 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 .

Voragh was right when he corrected my translation. (Thanky, sah.) I did,
indeed, leave out the idea of "also".

Adding {jIH} to your sentence above would emphasize the "I" part, so your
sentence would mean something like:
"Because I like it, *I* will also use your sentence."
The use of the extra {jIH} is not necessary, unless you wish to emphasize
the fact that it is you who will also be using the sentence. But it is still
perfectly grammatical without it.

If you want to say "Because I liked your sentence, I also used it." (Putting
the word "sentence" on the "because" clause, instead of the main clause of
the sentence), you would do just that. Place the word {mu'tlheghlIj} at the
beginning of the {-mo'} clause:
{mu'tlheghlIj vIparHa'qu'mo', vIlo' je.} "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.

The sentences above have no difference in tense. (They don't even have a
tense. But that's a different post.)
Both of them can equally mean "Because I like,...", "Because I liked,...",
or "Because I will like,...". The placement of the word {mu'tlheghlIj} or
{jIH} have no bearing on this.

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

OK, when {je} follows a verb (or a pronoun acting as a verb), it means that
that verb is happening in addition to any other verb that might be going on.
It is translated most often as "also" or "too". {jI'agh}:

{De'wI' vIlo'} "I use a computer."
{De'wI' lo' be'nalwI'} "My wife uses a computer."
{De'wI' vIlo', 'ej lo' je be'nalwI'.} "I use a computer, and my wife uses
it, too."

More:
{QIm vISop} "I eat an egg."
{QIm vIjaD} "I throw around an egg."
{QIm vISop, 'ach vIjaD je.} "I eat an egg, but I also throw it around."

Once again, this is what happens when {je} immediately follows a verb.

When {je} follows a list (meaning more than one) of nouns or pronouns, it
means "and":

{De'wI' wIlo' be'nalwI', jIH je} "My wife and I use a computer."
{De'wI'mey, QImmey je vIjaD} "I through around eggs and computers."
This version of {je} appears only after the last noun. No matter how many
nouns you have, {je} comes at the end of the list.

And *both* versions of {je} can appear in the same sentence:
{De'wI' wIlo' be'nalwI', jIH je, 'ej De'wI' lulo' je jupwI', be'nalDaj je.}
"My wife and I use a computer, and my friend and his wife also use a
computer."

Following verbs, {je} means "too", or "also". Following more than one noun,
it means "and".

More guidance for using {je} can be found on page 55 of TKD.

> 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?

Absolutely. If you've any questions, please ask. It's what I'm here
for. }}: )

> 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.

I smiled when I read this. "She's using slang! Awesome!"
This is completely accurate. On page 167 of KGT, we are given the example of
{choyIv} "You bother me.", a canon example. So what's good for {cho-} is
good for {qa-}, qar'a'? }}; )
I understood your sentence completely, and so did not comment on it.
In other words, you did fine. }}: )

> 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.

There is no easy, formulaic way to translate something like this. It
requires... (everybody together now)... a recast.
To say the above, I would suggest:
{mu'tlheghlIj vIlo'. DuyIvbe' 'e' vItul.}
"I used your sentence. I hope it doesn't bother you."

But I still like your first sentence better.

> 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.

I fail to see a vital difference as well. Consider my opinion given. }}: )

> next question:

Fire away.

>  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.

Because {maH law'} would mean something like "many us's", if it means
anything at all. (I'll admit that it sounds like nonsense in both
languages.)

The words before {tu'lu'}, {tu'lu'be'}, etc. must be a noun or noun phrase.
It must be able to function as that object of {tu'}. {maH law'} doesn't fit
that bill.

I invite all questions if I haven't explained this well enough.

> 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?

Yes. Remeber that for {maH law'} to mean "many of us", {law'} would have to
be a noun. But, alas, it's a verb. SuStel and I had the same suggestion, but
he was quicker on the draw than I, so I let it rest. As a general style
rule, anytime I can use a verb, instead of a noun, or a noun phrase, I try
to. It seems more "Klingon". This does not mean that you *must* do it the
way SuStel and I do. It is just a stylistic choice.

> 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.

There's a specific reason for it. Klingon verbs, like their English
counterparts, must agree. In English, this is called "the rule of
Agreement". In Klingon, it is called "the rule of {roj}".

{jI'agh}:

In English, we say, "I am.", "You are", etc. "I is", and "You am"
immediately strike the ears of most English speakers as wrong. This is
because the verb and the subject do not "agree".

Same with Klingon. In Klingon,we say {mayIt} "We walk", {jIyIt} "I walk"
{yIt} "He/She/It walks." We can, if desired, add a pronoun ({maH}, {jIH},
{ghaH}, {'oH}) to the end of the sentence, to emphasize the fact that *we*
are walking, or I, as opposed to someone else, am walking, but when we do
this, we *must* keep the proper prefix on the verb. The presence or absence
of an explicit subject does not change the fact that the proper prefix must
be there.

{law' maH} "We is many" is as incorrect as its translation.

Does that help at all? I'm glad to see you finally asking questions again,
and I look forward to working through them with you. }}: )

--ngabwI'
Beginners' Grammarian,
Klingon Language Institute
http://kli.org/
HovpoH 701361.2

Back to archive top level