tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Nov 19 10:03:03 1993
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
nujDaq qam lanpu' vay'
- From: [email protected] (Mark E. Shoulson)
- Subject: nujDaq qam lanpu' vay'
- Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1993 13:02:44 -0500
- In-Reply-To: Peter Garza's message of Thu, 18 Nov 1993 22:53:57 -0600 (CST) <[email protected]>
>From: Peter Garza <[email protected]>
>Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1993 22:53:57 -0600 (CST)
>Okay, here goes...
I thought I saw something(s) that Krankor may have missed...
> jech DuSaQHomwIjDaq vay' noy wIrurchoH 'e' 'oH Qu'maj Qav'e'.
>DuSaQHomwIjDaq la' Riker tIn ghaHlaHtaHbogh loD'e' tu'lu'. raplaw'
>qabDu'chaj.
Took me a second on "Riker tIn", then I realized how well-done that was.
majQa'.
> Riker qab ghajnISpu'mo' "_ST:TNG Companion_"Hey je'ta' ghaH
>jIHvaD ja'lI'. "technical manuals" laDlI'vIS "Trekkies" Hoch paqvam
>vIje'ta' 'e'mo' (1) 'ar jI"be embarrassed"pu' (2) 'e' DaSovbe' ja'ta'
>ghaH.
Can you say "laDlI'vIS"? "-lI'" is sorta like "-taH", but it would seem
that "-vIS" really needs "-taH", according to section 4.2.9. I'm not
entirely sure about the "-lI'"s elsewhere here, but aspect's tricky to keep
straight, and I won't say you should change them.
> tlhIngan Hol jatlhbogh loDvaD bIja'taH vIja'ta'. 'IjtaH Holvam
>vIjatlh 'e' Sovbogh juppu'wIj wa' je 'ej Haghqu'choH ghaH.
"juppu'wI'"; they're sentient (I hope!). Do you mean "one of my friends
who know I speak Klingon"? Then the "wa'" comes *first*. When numbers
come afterwards they mean something like "number one" (you used this
construction when referring to your music teacher in a previous post--it
was you, right?--and I figured it sort of worked for "first", though
wa'DIch would have been better).
> loDvaD nujvo' qamlIj yIlel jatlhta' jupwIj.
I note that you don't have the possessive on {nujvo'}, and I don't really
miss it. Many languages don't have the obssessive need to put possessives
where they're obvious that English has (he has his hands in [the]
pockets... why do I need to say "his" pockets? If it were someone else's,
I'd have told you so). jupwI' again.
> HIja', "ankle"Daq 'oH vIghuppu' neH jangpu' loD.
> jIba'taH neH 'ej ghaHvaD Ho'Du'wIj vI'angtaH.
Heh... I showed him my teeth... What does Larry Niven say about smiling
being misinterpreted by some races as a show of agressiveness, baring the
teeth... :)
>(1) I wanted to say "because of <the whole sentence>". Since "'e'" is
>a pronoun, I guessed it could take verb suffixes like the other
>pronouns.
This has been brought up already, but so far as I know is still on shaky
ground. You could recast as Krankor suggests, or maybe use "Dochvetlhmo'"
(or Dochvammo'); those should work well.
~mark