tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Nov 20 17:17:07 1993
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: nujDaq qam lanpu' vay'
- From: Peter Garza <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: nujDaq qam lanpu' vay'
- Date: Sat, 20 Nov 1993 19:17:00 -0600 (CST)
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]> from "Mark E. Shoulson" at Nov 19, 93 01:02:44 pm
>
>
> >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]