tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Apr 01 12:54:20 2004

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: KLBC

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

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2004 12:04 PM
Subject: KLBC


> mu'tlheghlIj'e' vIparHa'qu'mo', vIlo' je.
>    "Because I like *your sentence*, I will use it too."
>
> qon Voragh
> in which case this is a perfectly normal sentence, with the object prefix
> {vI-} referring to the object of the first clause.  In fact, if you write
> it this way, you don't really need {-'e'}; the sentence is emphatic enough
> with {-qu'}.  Too much emphasis can be counter-productive.-
>                --------------------------------------------------
> Which is exactly how i wrote it in the beginning! look at it here below.

{HIvqa' veqlargh!} Sorry about that.


> My conclusion:
>
> people have different writing styles.( BTW different styles in speech too.
i
> know i do!) that doesnt mean they are grammatically incorrect and when
someone
> responds to a beginners post, they should take this into consideration, if
> they want to help rather than confuse the original writer.

I don't believe that anyone was attempting to confuse you, and I apologize
if any impression was made like that. I didn't respond to a couple of your
posts because others had already done so. The two that spring to mind are
Voragh and SuStel, both of whom actually had my job (BG) before I even knew
this list existed. Voragh isn't called the "Canon Master" for nothing, and
SuStel is widely regarded as one of this list's most conservative speakers.
Any advice either of them give you can be safely assumed to be accurate.

> like this one, but the grammarian either told me that it wasnt necessary
or i
> didnt receive a response from him.

If, by "the grammarian", you mean me,  I apologize. I try not to miss posts.
Please repost and we'll work on it.
FYI: "Grammarian", on this list, refers to a person who has either "done
time" as a BG, or is otherwise respected for their knowledge of the
language. There are a several on this list.

> also, someone told me i should have used {confuse} in this sentence
instead
> of {mixe}: mu'meylIj rurbe' mu'meywIj 'ach cha' mu'meyvam  vIDuDtaH. Since
no
> one commented on this i am asking now...i wanted to say that i mix them.
yes,
> it can be said {i confuse them}, but again are we talking about a style of
> writing or of speech or are we talking grammatically correct or not?

I would guess that we are speaking of being "semantically" correct.
(Choosing the proper words.)
The only time I've seen {DuD} used in canon is in KGT, when the {DuDwI'}, a
stick used for mixing, was introduced. So, to be safe, I would avoid using
{DuD} to mean "confuse".
Which opens another can of worms entirely. We don't have a verb meaning "to
confuse" that would work exactly the way you need it to. We do, however,
have a verb {mIS} "to be confused", that, along with {-moH}, would probably
help you get your point across.
If you recast "I confuse the two words" as "The two words cause me to be
confused", the problem solves itself:
{mumISmoH cha' mu'meyvam}

Very close in meaning, IMO, and probably just what you're looking for.

> my exact meaning for this was intended: my words are not just like yours
but
> i am constantly mixing the 2 . ( i thought that since i was using a number
i
> needed to use the noun again, so it would be understood that i was still
> talking about the words and not some other 2 somethings.)

An excellent habit to get into.

> although i appreciate the
> imput and most of it is ok and it doesnt confuse me,, for now on i will
put
> KLBC in my posts if i have any questions concerning grammar in order to
get the
> correct info from him first before others respond.

Another good habit. One I developed myself starting out. I probably drove
Quvar to the brink of madness with my constant questioning. }}: )

Any questions, gimme a holler.

--ngabwI'
Beginners' Grammarian,
Klingon Language Institute
http://kli.org/
HovpoH 701361.4

Back to archive top level