tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Jul 09 03:29:28 1994

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

KLBC (old): RE: News and Announcements



>| From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
>
>| According to Matt Whiteacre:
>|
>| > yIH wISopqang maH law'
>| > 'ach pobDaj DaSay'moH'a'
>| > 
>| > (or should that be jIb in the last sentence?)
>| 
>| On a tribble, I don't think it matters much. How could you
>| tell, anyway?
>
>chuSmoHbogh Dop yIH yI'Ij


Hm.  I think you wanted to say "Listen for the side of the tribble which makes 
noise"?  That's a toughie... kudos for you for trying!  You had a few good 
ideas, but got a bit tangled in grammar...

First, you don't need the -moH in your realtive clause (the thing with the -
bogh at the end).  What you actually said was "The side which causes 
<something?> to be noisy."  Why not leave out the -moH, and say "the side 
which is noisy"?  Also, you got your noun-noun combination backwards.  You 
actually said "listen to the tribble of the side which is noisy".  revers the 
two words.  Yes, you have to move the relative clause as well... so you get:

	yIH chuSbogh Dop yI'Ij.
	"Listen the side which is noisy of the tribble."

Actually, I would make one other change.  In this translation, the idea that 
you are looking to *find* that side of the tribble is lost.  But we have a 
verb suffix for that:  -meH.  So we throw in there somewhere that we are 
listening *for the purpose of finding* that side.  The verb for "to find" is 
<tu'>:

	yIH chuSbogh Dop Datu'meH yI'Ij.
	"Listen in order that you find the side with is noisy of the tribble."

Does this makes sense?  -meH sometimes confuses new students of Hol.  I think 
it sometimes confuses *old* students, too. {{;)



>| bangwI' vIQuchmoHmeH jatwIj vIlo'taHvIS yIH pob vISay'qangqu'moH
>|               bangwI'vaD pagh veHmey vISovtaH
>
>
>jat <be hairy> Dalo'chugh  vaj  Qatlh banglI' DaQuchmoH 'e' Datu'
>
>
>Did I get the syntax of the then-clause correct?
>
>--Rob

Um, no.  (But your if-clause was just fine!)  You are trying to make a 
sentence the subject of another sentence ( "You will find that causing your 
love to be happy" is the subject of "it is difficult"), which Klingon has no 
construct for.  I would re-cast this, with a subordinate clause with -taHvIS 
or perhaps -meH on it... something like:

	jat <be hairy> Dalo'chugh banglI' DaQuchmoHtaHvIS, Qatlh 'e' Datu'.
	"If you use a hairy tongue while you are causing your love to be 
happy, you find it is difficult."

Or even:

	banglI' DaQuchmoHmeH jat <be hairy> Dalo'chugh Qatlh 'e' Datu'.
	"If you use a hairy tongue to cause your love to be happy, you will 
find that it is difficult."

This brings up the question of indefinite its.  I would be inclined to let 
either of these slide, though.  If not, then you can always introduce a 
subject for Qatlh of <Qu'lIj>  ("your task"):

	banglI' DaQuchmoHmeH jat <be hairy> Dalo'chugh Qatlh Qu'lIj 'e' Datu'.
	"If you use a hairy tongue to cause your love to be happy, you will 
find that your task is difficult."

And, being female, I add one more little touch to make things even clearer 
still.. at least, on how *I* feel on the matter.  The small change is left to 
the student. {{;)

	banglI' DaQuchmoHmeH jat <be hairy> Dalo'chugh Qatlh Qu'lIj 'e' 
Datu'bejqu'!


--HoD trI'Qal

Back to archive top level