tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Dec 06 11:17:59 1994
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: *sigh*
On Tue, 6 Dec 1994, R.B Franklin wrote:
> > > 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.
*nod* i can understand that. only reason i didn't was because i hadn't
noticed the trend. if it helps with clarity, i'll do it. but i don't
know how "correct" it is.
> 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. {{:-)
*nods* yep.... that was the general idea... *grin*
> 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.
actually, i used {-taH} to indicate that i had been thinking about this
particular sentence(s) for a while and still couldn't understand it, and
would probably continue to not understand it until someone could explain
it to me. perhaps the addition of {-vam} to <mu'tlheghmey> would've made
that implication clearer.
and i used <pu'> because i was referring to your creation of those
sentences. 1) i didn't know if you were specifically trying to use one
construction or another (and had done so successfully!), and 2) because,
since its *speaking*, it doesn't seem to me to have a goal as such. of
course it has an intent, but it seems (TO ME) that speaking is so much an
everyday part of klingon life that it warrants {-pu'} and not {-ta'}.
this is not to say that you don't speak deliberately; rather it is to say
that *everyone* speaks deliberately and that when someone finishes saying
something it isn't usually cause for celebration. *shrug* just the way
i see it.
> mu'tlheghmey'e' chenmoHta'bogh yoDtargh vIyajbe'.
> Yes, that sounds better to me.
mu'tlheghmeyvam'e' chenmoH<-ta'? -pu'?>bogh yoDtargh vIyajbe'taH
[explaination deleted... thanks, yoDtargh...]
> '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..."
ahhhh!!! i keep forgetting that the adverbial <neH> is an oddball.
thanks for pointing that out. (everything else made sense; i just
couldn't figure out how the verb "he wants it" fit in.... *grin*)
> > <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
i disagree with this statement. i don't think that's the way objects
work in tlhIngan Hol. what i understand is (and someone correct me if
i'm wrong), if only one object is present, Hol doesn't distinguish
whether it is an indirect or direct object. only context makes this. i
can say <qabuS> (i think that's the word, don't have TKD with me) and it
might mean "i concentrate on you" or "i concentrate TO you" (implying
esp). hrm.... i think that's not quite the example i was looking for,
but ... hrm.
<qanIH>
"I steal you."
"I steal FROM you."
there, that's better. i think.
this is how *i* understand objects to work. i've seen several people on
this list say something like <Soj qanIH> for "I steal food from you."
(at least, i think <Soj> is food.... you get the idea.) i don't know if
this is good grammar, but it makes sense to me. so i think that
<vIQIjlu''a'> makes sense. perhaps <vIQIjqanglu''a'> might be better,
clearer, but i don't see the first as grammatically incorrect.
again, someone correct me if i'm offbase.
> The {neH} I was using was the adverbial, meaning "just", "only", "merely".
the only thing i would say about this is: i thought {neH} was an
attention-drawer. drawing the importance from the verb it modifies.
kinda like saying "well, dad, i *kinda* got a speeding ticket today." by
using {neH} in your sentence, you remove its importance, and thus remove
importance of the entire sentence. (imesho.)
> 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)
this would actually be "when they can *barely* ask it". "when they can
merely ask to leave, they can go. we don't care if they learn more than
that." that's the kind of context *i* understand {neH} to be found in.
[other stuff deleted... thanks again]
> > > yoDtargh
> > --naQ'avwI'
> yoDtargh
--naQ'avwI'
tlhIngan Hol Dajatlhchugh "[email protected]"Daq jabbI'IDmeylIj yIngeH
*&* Silauren, Half-Elven *&* Jeremy Greene *&* There's only ONE god!
*&* [email protected] *&* Don't drop acid. *&* He is the SUN god!!
*&* [email protected] *&* Take it Pass/Fail. *&* Ra! Ra!! RA!!!
*&* "Get in there, you big furry oaf! I don't care what you smell!" -Han Solo