tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Dec 06 02:30:25 1994
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: *sigh*
On Mon, 5 Dec 1994, Silauren Half-Elven wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Dec 1994, R.B Franklin wrote:
>
> > > qatlh naDev lughoS luneH Hoch? tlhIngan Hol lughoj luneHbe''a' ?
> > > vIHarQo'!
> > naDev ghotpu'vam DIratlhmoH 'e' vIchup 'ej mej chaH 'e' lutlhoblaHDI' neH
> > tlhIngan Hol lulo'taHvIS vaj mej chaH 'e' DIchaw'. {{;-)
> mu'tlheghmey chenmoHpu'bogh /yoDtargh/ vIyajbe'taH
This isn't in TKD, but people on the List usually put {-'e'} on the head
noun the of a relative clause ({-bogh} phrases). That's because
{mu'tlheghmey chenmoHpu'bogh yoDtargh vIyajbe'taH} is ambiguous since
it can mean two different things: (1) I am not understanding the sentences
which yoDtargh had made; or (2) I am not understanding yoDtargh which
had made the sentences.
To indicate it is 'the sentences' you don't understand, and not me
(yoDtargh), you can put {-'e'} on the head of the relative clause to
indicate whether {mu'tlheghmey} or {yoDtargh} is object of the sentence.
I.e. {mu'tlheghmey'e' chenmoHpu'bogh yoDtargh vIyajbe'taH.}
At least, that's what I hope you meant. {{:-)
Also, you really don't need to use {-taH}, I hate to think that your
inability to understand my sentences is a continuous or ongoing thing and
I hope I my sentences are not always hard to understand. {{:-)
I also think {-ta'} would be better than {-pu'} because {-pu'} seems to
imply that I have made the sentences inadvertently.
mu'tlheghmey'e' chenmoHta'bogh yoDtargh vIyajbe'.
Yes, that sounds better to me.
I wrote this sentence in response to the numerous people trying to
unsubscribe from the list. I was trying to make a joke and say, "I
suggest we make these people remain here, and only when they are able to
ask to leave in Klingon will we allow them to leave."
It is kind of long so I'll break it up.
naDev ghotpu'vam DIratlhmoH 'e' vIchup
(We make these people remain here, I suggest/recommend that)
"I suggest we make these people remain here..."
'ej mej chaH 'e' lutlhoblaHDI' neH tlhIngan Hol lulo'taHvIS
(and they leave, only when they can ask that, while they are using the
Klingon language)
"...and only when they are able to ask to leave in Klingon..."
vaj mej chaH 'e' DIchaw'. (should be {'e' wIchaw'})
(then/in that case, they leave, ^^ we allow that)
"...then we allow that they leave."
> <neH> lo'law'ghach vIyajbe'
> vIQIjlu''a'
{vIQIjlu''a'} means (Is someone explaining me?). It might be better to
say, {jIHvaD QIjqanglu''a'} (Is someone willing to explain it to me?) or
{jIHvaD QIjlaH'a' vay'} (Is someone able to explain it to me?) On the
other hand, I think it is more Klingon to take the direct approach,
{jIHvaD yIQIj.} (Explain it to me!)
I often have a hard time reading a sentence when I see {neH} too.
That's because {neH} can be either of two different words; one's a verb
(to want) and the other is an adverbial (just/only/merely) and both words
have irregular usage. To further complicate things, I often see people
use both of them incorrectly.
The {neH} I was using was the adverbial, meaning "just", "only", "merely".
There are two wierd things about {neH} (the adverbial):
(1) Adverbials typically modify a verb but {neH} can modify nouns as
well; and
(2) Adverbials normally come at the beginning of a object-verb-subject
construction, except for {jay'} and {neH}. {jay'} comes at the end of
the sentence; {neH} comes after the word it modifies.
In the sentence above, I was trying to use {neH} to modify the preceeding
subordinate clause:
{luthloblaHDI'} (when they can ask it)
{lutlhoblaHDI' neH} (just/only when they can ask it)
The unusual feature of {neH} (the verb, "to want"), is when it's used in
a sentence-as-object construction, you don't use {'e'} or {net} (Sec 6.2.5.).
naDev DIratlhmoH 'e' vIchup. (I suggest we make them remain here.)
naDev DIratlhmoH net chup. (One suggests we make them remain here.)
naDev DIratlhmoH vIneH. (I want us to make them remain here.)
I sincerely hope I'm not giving giving out any bad advice, but I'm sure
I'll hear from the grammarians if I am. Actually, it's kind of fun playing
grammarian just for a little while.
> > yoDtargh
> --naQ'avwI'
yoDtargh