tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Nov 29 12:05:03 1993

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

HaghmoHwI'Hom

>From: [email protected] (x)
>Date: Thu, 25 Nov 93 02:28:49 +0100
>Content-Length: 544

Well, you deliberately asked for plural correctors, so whether or not I'm
still official, here goes...

I actually still don't understand this too well; maybe it'll make sense as
I go.

>wamwI'pu' mej net wuq cha' nuv taQ

You have here a subject on a sentence with "net" as the object; I'm not sure
that makes sense.  I consider "net Sov" to be something very close (if not
identical) to "'e' Sovlu'".  That is, there's an indefinite
"one/they/folks" who are the subject.  "Two weird people/one [both
subjects?] decided that he/she/it/they leave hunters"?  Do you mean "two
weird people decided to go out hunting"?  Maybe "wam 'e' luwuq cha' nuv
taQ" or "wammeH ruch 'e' luwuq cha' nuv taQ" would be better?

>chalHa'DIbaH wamghachvaD Ha'DIbaH luje'

"for the benefit of sky-animal hunting they feed an animal".  OK,
sky-animal works okay for "bird".  But if you mean "they fed an animal for
bird-hunting", perhaps a purpose clause with -meH would be more
appropriate.  "chalHa'DIbaHmey wammeH Ha'DIbaH luje'" perhaps?  I'm not
sure I understand the significance of feeding an animal to hunt birds.

>ngemvaD latlh wamwI'pu tlha' chaH Ha'DIbaH je 'ej wamchoH

"For the forest, they and the animal followed another's hunters and started
hunting."  Oh, I see, this makes more sense now.  Maybe "ngemDaq" for "to
the forest".  Not sure if "other hunters" should be "latlh wamwI'pu'" or
"wamwI'pu' latlh" or something else (assuming that's what you want to say).

>rInDI' jaj pagh wamta'

"When the day was finished, he/she/it/[they?] had [deliberately] hunted
nothing".  Not sure whether "pagh" should be singular, requiring "lu-" if
you mean "they" hunted.  I'm not sure of the meaning, but if you mean that
by the end of the day, they hadn't caught anything, then use a different
verb: they certain *hunted* something, they just failed, and probably not
deliberately (so -ta' is wrong.  -pu' would be okay, since it would be that
the *had* caught nothing; that action is finished).  "rInDI' jaj pagh
luSuqpu'/lujonpu'".

>wa'leS wamqa'

"Tomorrow, they resume hunting."  This is a good question.  Is "wa'leS"
tomorrow, or "the next day"?  I've been using "jaj tlha'/tlha'bogh jaj" as
"the following day".

>juHvaD chagh'eghqa' pagh ghajvIS chaH

"they dropped themselves again for the home, while[*] they had nothing."
Presumably you meant "chegh" and not "chagh", for "returned".  "-Daq" would
probably work better than "-vaD" again.  Probably "lu-" on ghaj, and you
can't have "-vIS" without "-taH".  I try to think of those as one suffix.
"while Xing"?  that's "XtaHvIS"; the concept of "-vIS" by itself shouldn't
enter your head.  Using "-DI'" is probably cleaner for "when they got home,
they had nothing":  "juHDaq chegh'eghDI' pagh lughaj."

>chaHvaD Hagh wamwI' Hoch

"All of the hunters laughed for them".  Maybe "because of them"/"chaHmo'"?
Not too different.

>tlha'bogh jajDaq qaS Doch rap

I still don't trust "-Daq" as a preposition of time.  It just doesn't
follow.  I'd have to insist of "qaStaHvIS jaj tlha'/tlha'bogh jaj".  I like
the idea of using "wanI'" here instead of "Doch"; the tendency to use a few
very general words instead of more specific ones is very English-centric,
and we have evidence that it doesn't happen in Klingon (naDev qaS wanI'
ramqu', etc).

>quvHa''eghmoHqu'

Maybe place the "-qu'" after the "-Ha'" so as to emphasize the dishonor,
not the causation?

>tlha'bogh ja' chaH wa'

"he/she/it which follows him/her/it one of them said".  "tlha'bogh" should
have at least a subject or an object, shouldn't it?  "Tho following" might
be "tlha'wI'" (that which follows).

>  muj vay'
>'ej Dochvam jang latlh

Lose the "Dochvam"; I don't know what it means there.

>  mujqu' vay'
>  pagh jonta' Ha'DIbaHvam QIp
>  lI'Ha'qu' 'oH jay' pagh wIjenmoHHa'

"...this stupid animal [deliberately] caught nothing.  It's useless,
dammit.  We *lower nothing."  OK, I give up.  In CK, Okrand implies that
"useless" is better done as "lI'be'", but that's debatable.  "-Ha'" always
comes right after the verb, not after the "-moH".  But I don't get what it
has to do with anything...  Help?

Hope you don't mind the pedantry, but you did ask...

~mark

Back to archive top level