tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Mar 24 04:11:57 2014
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] The Legend of Gorath part 3
ghItlhpu' gheyIl, jatlh:
> I'm not completely clear on which speech verbs use 'e' and which do not.
> Does it depend on whether it's directly quoted speech or not.
>
> {yIH vImuS ja'} "I hate tribbles, he said"
> {yIH muS 'e' ja'} "He said that he hates tribbles"
As Qov has said, {jatlh} and {ja'} can be used for direct quoting of speech. We don't have any examples of indirect speech with {jatlh} and {ja'}, but we do have a couple with {tlhob} in the paq'batlh and I don't see any reason why {jatlh} and {ja'} couldn't do the same thing:
molor luSuvmeH / nuHmeychaj Suq / ’e’ tlhob qeylIS
"Kahless asks that they take up their weapons to fight Molor" (paq'raD 6.10-12)
> Regarding noun-noun constructions, it would seem that a possessive
> should goes on the 2nd noun. {'Iw HIqDaj} sounds so much more correct
> than the macabre {'IwDaj HIq}.
As Qov has pointed out, it depends on your meaning. {'Iw HIqDaj} is "his bloodwine". My immediate first thought on {'IwDaj HIq} was "his blood alcohol content"; that is, "the alcohol of his blood".
More pedantically, {'Iw HIq} is "wine of blood", so {'Iw HIqDaj} is "his wine of blood", and {'IwDaj HIq} is "wine of his blood".
> I had written {HoSwIJ Hoch} but perhaps {HoS HochwIj} is more correct?
Literally, {HoS HochwIj} translates to "my all of strength", which doesn't make a great deal of sense.
> About the alternative {HoSwIj naQ}. Does the possessive go on the noun
> like that, or on the verb-adjective as in {HoS naQwIj} ?
It does; only type 5 suffixes go on the adjective: {HoSwIj naQmo'} "because of all of my strength".
> I have from HQ 10.2 that {pe'vIl roS} is an adverbial idiom to convey
> agile, nimble or spry.
It is an idiom, but it's not adverbial: it's an adverb with a verb, so the meaning is more "be agile, be nimble, be spry". {pe'vIl jIroS} "I am agile", {pe'vIl bIroS} "you are agile", and so forth.
> Given that, I do prefer your rendering with nouns - the repetition is
> quite satisfying.
tlho'. :) Such repetition is typical of Klingon prose.
> I take your point about my use of {tlhop'a'}.
> Are there any restrictions to placing noun suffixes on pronouns?
Not formally, but most of them don't make a great deal of sense: ??{SoHmey} "youse", ??{maHwIj} "our us", and
> Could I say {SoH'a' tlhop} "in front of your greatness"?
> How about belittling someone with {-Hom} on a pronoun?
The augmentative and diminutive suffixes aren't honourific or derogatory in nature, so the metaphorical sense is really lost in the Klingon.
> I think what I meant to say was {HoSghajchu' 'e' DavItchugh} "If you
> tell the truth that he is so powerful"
Like Qov, I'm not sure about {vIt} used in this way, but I'm content to let it be.
> You suggested {HoSghajchu' 'e' vIvoqchugh}, but {voq} doesn't sit quite
> right with me. How about {HoSghajchu' 'e' vIHarchugh} ?
Also fine.
> As always, murach QaHlIj.
qaQaHlaHpu'mo' jIbelqu'. :)
QeS
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
![[KLI Member]](/pics/KLImemberbutton.gif "[KLI Member]"){kind=small}