tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Jan 07 08:46:16 2011
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: mu'tlheghvam yIlughmoH
Felix, bIlughchu'. I should have read Okrand's explanation thoroughly:
"Note that the voyage and the song cannot end themselves.
Someone has to end them." [HQ 12.2:8]
> Not sure why the lu- prefix isn't used here (neither for van nor
> ghang). Do you think this is an exception or a mistake?
There are two more examples from the same article:
leng [lu]ghangDI' SuvwI'pu' 'IQ chaH
When the warriors end the voyage prematurely, they are sad. [HQ 12.2]
bom [lu]ghangDI' SuvwI'pu' tlhutlh chaH
When the warriors end the song prematurely, they drink. [HQ 12.2]
Okrand has done this before,
Ha'DIbaHmey meQ Sop 'e' tIv tera'nganpu'
Terrans enjoy eating burnt animals. CK
[sic! for {'e' lutIv tera'nganpu'}]
And many people have wondered why {lu-} is routinely left off of {tu'lu'} "there are" when the meaning is plural:
At qep'a' loSDIch "Robyn Stewart's idea of {lutu'lu'} as "the
Klingon version of 'whom'" got a nod and an explicit lack of
contradiction [from Okrand]. {naDev tlhInganpu' lutu'lu'} is
grammatical, but the {lu-} is more often left off. [ghunchu'wI']
{lutu'lu'} does NOT translate as "whom' in any way at all. It
is just that in English, most people use the word "who" when
formally they should be using "whom", much like most Klingons
use the word {tu'lu'} when they should be using {lutu'lu'}.
In other words, the more formally correct sentence is
{tlhInganpu' lutu'lu'} though most Klingons most of the time
would say {tlhInganpu' tu'lu'}. [charghwI']
Okrand eventually addressed this in KGT:
KGT 172: Except in formal situations, however, the omission of {lu-} in such cases is overlooked. Though technically an error, and jarring to many Klingons' ears, it causes no confusion as to the intended meaning of the sentence. It is important to note that this does not mean that the use of {lu-} is optional; it is left off only under specific conditions.
--
Voragh
Ca'Non Master of the Klingons
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Felix Malmenbeck
>
> > chay' van bomvam? wej 'e' vISov.
> I'm under the impression that van is transitive and that the object is
> that which ends.
>
> chay' vanlu' bomvam.
>
> >From http://klingonska.org/canon/search/?file=2003-06-holqed-12-
> 2.txt&get=source:
>
> -------------
> leng vanDI' SuvwI'pu' 'IQ chaH.
> At the end of the voyage, the warriors are sad.
> lit. When the warriors end the journey, they are sad.
>
> bom vanDI' SuvwI'pu' tlhutlh chaH
> At the end of the song, the warriors drink
> lit. "when the warriors end the song, they drink"
> -------------
>
> Not sure why the lu- prefix isn't used here (neither for van nor
> ghang). Do you think this is an exception or a mistake?
>
> ________________________________________
> From: [email protected] [[email protected]] on
> behalf of Steven Boozer [[email protected]]
> Sent: Friday, January 07, 2011 16:17
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: RE: mu'tlheghvam yIlughmoH
>
> Still another way of asking this question is with a verb {van} "end (an
> event)":
>
> chay' van bomvam? wej 'e' vISov.
> How does this song end? I don't know [that] yet.
>
>
> HQ 12.2 p.8-9: Generally, one expresses the end of a stretch of time
> by using a verb rather than a noun. That is, one says "when the month
> ends" rather than "at the end of the month". The verb for this kind of
> end is {Dor} [...] When an event over which one has some control ends
> (one can't cause a month to end), a different verb is used: {van}. This
> would apply to such things as voyages, battles, plays, operas, stories,
> and songs. Here, the event (the voyage, the song) doesn't end; the
> participant in the event or the perpetrator of the event ends it. [...]
> Note that the voyage and the song cannot end themselves. Someone has to
> end them. [...]
> There is a difference between the end of the performance of a song
> or opera or play, indicated by making use of the verbs {van} and
> {ghang} ["end (an event) prematurely"], and the ending, or final
> portion, of a song or opera or play itself. For an opera, play, story,
> speech, and so on, the final portion is its {bertlham}. This word
> usually refers to the last aria or other musical portion in an opera,
> last speech in a play, last sentence or so of a story or an address
> [...] For a song--but only for a song--the final portion is its
> {'o'megh}. Parallel to {bertlham}, {'o'megh} is the final phrase or so
> of the song, one that brings the song to a definite conclusion. All
> songs have endings ({'o'meghmey}), some more elaborate or stirring than
> others.
>
>
> --
> Voragh
> Ca'Non Master of the Klingons
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [email protected] [mailto:tlhingan-hol-
> [email protected]]
> > On Behalf Of lojmIt tI'wI' nuv
> > Sent: Friday, January 07, 2011 8:17 AM
> > To: [email protected]
> > Subject: Re: mu'tlheghvam yIlughmoH
> >
> > A more direct way to say this would perhaps be {bomvam 'o'meH
> > vISovbe'.} You seem to go way out of your way to force {'e'} into
> > sentences that don't need it. You also really like pronouns.
> >
> > One of Okrand's goals in designing Klingon was to get rid of the verb
> > "to be", and then working with real scripts, he conceded, "Okay, you
> > can use pronouns for 'to be'." There are not a lot of examples of him
> > using it, and when he does, it tends to be very straightforward, like
> > {tlhIngan maH}. English speakers LOVE the various forms of the word
> "to
> > be" and "to go" and "to do" and we pad most of our sentence with
> them.
> >
> > Klingon is not encoded English. It is an alien language. Your mind is
> > supposed to work differently when you are speaking Klingon than it
> does
> > when you are speaking English. That's the fun part of using it for
> me.
> > I like having to think differently.
> >
> > Step one is to simplify. Boil the meaning down to its essence, then
> > build a Klingon sentence with that essence, dumping "to be" whenever
> > you can. There are times when it is just the right thing, like
> > {tlhIngan maH}. But much of the time, you don't need "to be". You
> also
> > usually don't need sentences tied to other sentences. You can
> simplify
> > things down to nuggets. It's an attitude as much as it is a process.
> >
> > In my opinion.
> >
> > pItlh.
> > lojmIt tI'wI' nuv
> >
> >
> >
> > On Jan 7, 2011, at 8:22 AM, Felix Malmenbeck wrote:
> >
> > >> {nuq 'oH bomvam 'o'megh 'e' wej vISov}
> > > {nuq 'oH bomvam 'o'megh'e'. wej vISov.} DaghItlh 'e' DaHechpu''a'.
> > >
> > > {How does this song end? I don't know yet.}
> > > bIlugh.
> > >
> > > jISIv, lughlaH'a' mu'tlheghmey. jISovchu'be'. lughlaH nuvpu'. 'e'
> > vISov *canon*mo'. ...'ej lughlaHlaw' Sormey.
> > > mu'tlheghmey nuvpu' je vIDelmeH wa' mu' DIvI' Hol vIjatlhtaHvIS. 'a
> > SoSwI' Hol vIjatlhtaHvIS pIm ghu'.
> > > Sov'a' vay'.
> > > ________________________________________
> > > From: [email protected] [[email protected]] on
> > behalf of Ruben Molina [[email protected]]
> > > Sent: Friday, January 07, 2011 04:37
> > > To: [email protected]
> > > Subject: mu'tlheghvam yIlughmoH
> > >
> > > juppu' Savan,
> > >
> > > {nuq 'oH bomvam 'o'megh 'e' wej vISov} qar'a'
> > > yIlughmoH qarbe'chugh mu'tlheghvam.
> > >
> > > ruben