tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Dec 06 08:50:09 1994

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

Re: *sigh*



According to R.B Franklin:

...
> I also think {-ta'} would be better than {-pu'} because {-pu'} seems to 
> imply that I have made the sentences inadvertently.

Not necessarily. To use {-ta'} implies that making the sentence
was a goal and you accomplished it. {-pu'} states that the
process of making the sentence is complete. It does not make
any statement for or against there being any goal involved or
that such a goal was accomplished. If he wonders whether or not
you successfully "accomplished" forming the sentence, then
{-pu'} was the right choice. Diplomatic, even.

> mu'tlheghmey'e' chenmoHta'bogh yoDtargh vIyajbe'.
> Yes, that sounds better to me.

Fine.

> 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) 

This part gets a little loose with the grammar. Remember that
Klingon does not use indirect quotes. This is an error I've
made and had to answer for a few times. This would translate
as, //As soon as they can merely ask, "they leave," while they
are using the Klingon language.// That's not what you want.

Also, as I posted earlier, when applied to a verb, {neH}
trivializes the action, like the English word "merely". It does
NOT mean "only" in the sense of "exclusively" unless it is
modifying a NOUN.

Another picky detail is that verbs of speaking (like {tlhob})
don't use the pronoun {'e'} in a sentence as object
construction.

jImej 'e' yIchaw ra'laHpa' ghotpu'vam, tlIngan Hol lo'taHvIS,
mej chaH 'e' wIchawQo' 'e' vIchup.

I'd be happier if I got the time setting {tlhIngan Hol
lo'taHvIS} before the verb {ra'}, but I think it makes this
complex sentence more difficult to parse, so I cheat and use
commas...

If anybody has a hard time figuring this one out, let me know.
As a clue for beginners, it begins with sentence-as-object
construction, which is part of a direct quote (including a
subject of the verb of speaking). This verb of speaking is a
time context for the rest of the sentence (note the {-pa'}).
After that, set apart by commas, is a clause giving another time
setting. These two time settings are really logical conditions.
"before X happens while Y happens." Next is the main verb,
which becomes the object of the NEXT main verb, which, once
more, becomes the object of the final main verb. In Klingon,
this probably constitutes a paragraph, but in English, we
translate it as one sentence. That's the nature of nested
sentence-as-object constructions.

> "...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."

With the prefix change, this is fine. My construction took a
different direction, but that's not all that important.

> > <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!)

All these are good approaches.

> 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. 

Well, more accurately, it is THREE words. It is the verb
"want", the adverbial for nouns (probably more accurately, an
adjectival) meaning "exclusively" and the adverbial for verbs,
meaning "merely". It is not, as you have used it, an adverbial
for verbs meaning "exclusively". TKD 5.4 spells it out rather
plainly.

> The {neH} I was using was the adverbial, meaning "just", "only", "merely".

You missed the difference between its application to nouns vs.
verbs.

> 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)

Nope. "when they can merely ask it", or possibly "merely when
they can ask it" or even "when they merely can ask it". Okrand
is not specific at all on how this adverbial combines with
suffixes, since many suffixes essentially act as adverbials...

> 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.  

Careful there. The job might stick. It could change your life.

> > --naQ'avwI' 
> 
> yoDtargh 

charghwI'
-- 

 \___
 o_/ \
 <\__,\
  ">   | Get a grip.
   `   |


Back to archive top level