tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Aug 24 13:48:52 1994
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
jISuptaH
This is a response to a response to what I posted under the KLBC. I have
changed the SubjectHeader because some of the things I'm writing here don't
belong in the KLBC. Also, by changing the subject, I am now addressing
charghwI' as an equal, rather than as the BG.
ghItlh pabpo'Hom'e' charghwI''e':
>Guido #1 offered the following to the beginners. I applaud the
>contribution. It is substantive enough to be challenging, but
>straightforward enough to be handled by the more diligent
>beginners.
>To the beginners, few things will improve your skills more than
>reading something like this. You know the context, which will
>help you decypher a lot. I find it far easier to read than
>random sentences with no context.
>Meanwhile, as Beginners' Grammarian, it is my job to tweak this
>where it might be helpful.
>> This is intended as a conversation starter for the long quiet KLBC. I'll
try
>> to use the simplest grammar I can while saying what I want. I'm also
writing
>> here because I can write whatever I want to talk about from my everyday
life.
>>
>> For clarity's sake:
>>
>> {SupmoHwI''a'} = "trampoline"
>>
>>
>> DaHjaj pov SupmoHwI''a'Daq jISuptaH
>> rut jISupDI' DungDaq jIDIng
>> wa'logh jISaqDI' SupmoHwI''a'Daq paw' qIvwIj'e'
>This might be a little clearer as:
>... paw'chuq qIvDu'wIj
Well, that's not what I meant. What happened was, I landed on my knees. But I
wasn't sure how to say this. And of course, it is NOT {qIvwIjDaq jISaq}. The
English idiom implies in Klingon that my knees are laying somewhere and I
come down on them. So change that last line to: {wa'logh jISaqDI'
SupmoHwI''a' ghor paw' qIvwIj'e'}.
>Topicallizing "knees" is okay, but not grammatically needed.
>For those confused by that, he just meant to stress the word.
>In this way, Klingon does with a syllable what English does
>with vocal inflection or written underlines.
Need you even mention this? I'm sure we all understand that {-'e'} has
meaning when used outside of mandatory usage. I never topicalize without good
reason, and here I simply wanted to stress that it was my knees that I
happened to land on, rather than my feet, which is what I'd intended to land
on.
>> 'ej SIHHa'mo' rIQchoH DubwIj'e'
>In TKD 6.2.1 at the bottom of the page, Okrand advises that
>when the same noun is the subject of two verbs, a pronoun can
>be used for the SECOND of the two sentences. While it is
>uncertain that this is a strict limitation, and in this case
>one of the two clauses is dependent and so arguably not really
>a sentence in its own right, following such a rule, this
>segment becomes:
>'ej SIHHa'mo' DubwIj rIQchoH 'oH
Yes, that does look a little clearer. And since clarity and precision are
always prudent on the KLBC, your version is the way to go in this case.
>If nothing else, I think this is a little easier to understand
>since you don't have to go through two verbs before finding out
>what the subject is. That final pronoun is optional. If you are
>concerned about {DubwIj} being misinterpreted as the object of
>{rIQchoH}, you can only do that if you interpret {'oy'} to be
>transitive, which the definition in TKD doesn't support very
>well. Transitivity is another one of those things we need
>Okrand to talk about more.
>My own suspicion is that Klingon verbs are much like English
>verbs in that some are only transitive, some are only
>intransitive and others can be either. Okrand just didn't think
>to indicate transitivity in his definitions, much as he
>neglects to indicate part of speech in all sources of new words
>outside of TKD (a pet peeve of mine).
I cannot believe that any verbs could go either way in Klingon. English is
exceptional among language for allowing many of its verbs to go either way.
You can look all you want; you won't readily find this phenomenon elsewhere
in the world. I dare anyone to prove me wrong.
>> qaStaHvIS poHHom jItlhuHlaHchu'be'
>For anyone confused about the placement of {-be'}, he is
>indicating that he can breathe, but not clearly or perfectly.
>> SupmoHwI''a'vam ghaj [MattPounds]'e'
>> DubwIj vI'oy'be'moHmeH chuch'e' munob [Matt]
>Since you are implying that your back already hurts and the ice
>is to make it stop hurting, this would also be a good place to
>use {-choH}:
>DubwIj vI'oy'be'choHmoHmeH...
>If, on the other hand, you mean that your back didn't hurt, but
>Matt decided to use ice to PREVENT it from hurting, you might
>instead go for:
>DubwIj vI'oy'be'moHtaHmeH...
It had been hurting from the moment of the sprain, tho the pain started small
and then gradually increased until it peaked around 12 hours after the
sprain, and now continues to die down. Only minutes afterward, Matt gave me
an icepack for it. At that time there was a slight, ever building up pain.
Anyhow, I still opt for the verb form that I used there, because it is just
like your first suggestion but without the {-choH}. I find {-choH} and {-moH}
used together makes for very redundant constructions, because in the
description of {-moH} in TKD, the meaning of {-choH} is already strongly
implied: "Adding this suffix to a verb indicates that the subject is causing
a /change/ of condition or causing a /new/ condition to come into existence."
TKD 4.2.4 [emphasis added]. I keep it at, "in order that I cause it to be
hurtless", i.e., "to prevent my pain (for now and the rest of tonight)".
These subtle shades of meaning can often be a bit too subtle to seriously
consider.
>> wej HoSchu' DublIj muja' [Matt]
>Beginners: Notice here that he is using direct quotation
>instead of indirect quotation. "Matt tells me, 'YOUR back...'"
>not, "Matt tells me that MY back..." So far as we know, this is
>the correct way to handle quotation in Klingon.
>> chorgh Hut joq nem HoSchu'choH
>Gee. Must have been SOME INJURY. Sounds excruciating. Did you
>enjoy it, like a GOOD Klingon?
jISIQchu'pu' 'ej DaH jIbechtaH 'e' vItIv.
>One small point. This might be more grammatically correct as:
>chorgh nem Hut nem joq...
>The reason is that {joq} is a conjunction for NOUNS, but
>numbers are chuvmey. In English, we can say, "Eight or nine
>years" because English constantly allows this kind of shorthand
>for "Eight years or nine years". I'm not sure we have license
>to do this in Klingon.
Oh, yes. Conjunctions aren't always as generic as in English. For one thing,
we don't know how to combine adverbials or adjectivals. Cardinal numbers are
sort of like pre-positioned adjectivals.
>> 'ach 'e' vIloSqangbe'
>> wa'leS SupmoHwI''a'vetlh vIchargh!
>>
>>
>> ghuy'Do wa'
>Thanks for the material. It is a story well told. We all hope
>that our brave SuvwI' does not become a SuvwI' in a
>wheelchair...
ghobe'. nom jIpIvtaHqa'. HoSqa'DI' DubSomrawwIj SupmoHwI''a' vIchargh. chaq
SupmoHwI''a' vIje' je jIH.
>charghwI'
I'd hoped my grammar wasn't too complicated.
Guido#1, Leader of All Guidos