tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Dec 06 08:25:58 1994
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: *sigh*
>Date: Tue, 6 Dec 1994 05:48:43 -0500
>Originator: [email protected]
>From: "R.B Franklin" <[email protected]>
>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. {{:-)
Well, also near in mind that Okrand himself doesn't *require* the use of
-'e' to disambiguate, and in this case, the context is pretty clear. It's
very unlikely that the intent was to indicate *you* and qualify you; it was
pretty obviously the sentences, so it's perfectly reasonable not to use
"-'e'". After all, look at Okrand's own "Hov ghajbe'bogh ram rur pegh
ghajbe'bogh jaj". The disambiguation is probably needed there more than
here!
>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. {{:-)
Maybe the writer is indicating an ongoing inability to understand you...
>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
I would think that "tlhob" is a verb of speaking (and indeed Okrand uses it
as such in PK), and thus would have to use direct quoting and no 'e'.
I see the point about "neH". When neH follows a verb (as here), it means
"only this and not something else", as in "when they just *ask* to
leave... as opposed to begging to leave or anything worse." I don't know
that Klingon has a word for "only" in the sense you mean it.
> 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."
Maybe better would be something like:
"mamej 'e' yIchaw'" lutlhobmeH, tlhIngan Hol lulo'laHpa', mej 'e' wItuch.
Before they can use Klingon to ask "let us leave," we forbid their leaving.
>> <neH> lo'law'ghach vIyajbe'
>> vIQIjlu''a'
>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)
You are trying to apply "neH" not to the verb, but to the *suffix*:
i.e. only *when* they can ask. Sort of like {*lutlhoblaHDI'qu'}, if you
could put -qu' after -DI' (you can't).
>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.
Heh.
~mark