tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Nov 20 17:17:07 1993

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

Re: nujDaq qam lanpu' vay'



> 
> 
> >From: Peter Garza <[email protected]>
> >Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1993 22:53:57 -0600 (CST)
> 
> 
[...]
> >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'.

qatlho'.  I really didn't want to have to figure out "Riker who got a few
more pounds".  tIn - quick and easy

> 
> >   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.

Hmmm.  I thought the only difference between "-lI'" and "-taH" was a
known intention or goal.  If so, why might "-vIS" not be allowed with
"-lI'".  Oops, just saw... damn stray blank line messed up the "-vIS" and
"-taH" rule.  Anyway, my question still stands.  Couldn't "While" still
be said, whether the intention is known or not?  I really have no problems
with changing it to "laDtaHvIS" because for all I know, the people had no
known goal, just flipping pages  :).

> 
> >   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).

yup, my friends can speak (just not Klingon ;). jIghItlhHa'pu'.

In TKD 5.2, Okrand writes, "Numbers are used as nouns."  I tried to use the
N-N rule.  Maybe something like juppu'wI'vo' wa' (one from my friends).

[...]
> >(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.
> 

Could you (or anyone) post the general gist of the arguement against it.  I
still think that "'e'", being a pronoun, should be able to take suffixes,
but I'm no linguist nor do I subscribe to HolQeD (maybe Christmas ;).
Maybe it's a weird word lumped into the pronoun category by the Klingon
grammarians (kinda like putting "-Ha'" in with the rovers even though it
doesn't rove, so to speak).

> ~mark
> 
> 

Peter Garza
[email protected]



Back to archive top level