tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Nov 27 20:08:38 1994
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: targh lut
According to Terry Donnelly:
>
This story is great, so far. (I haven't finished it before
beginning this reply, so I'll read the rest as I go on.)
>
> Please critique this:
>
> {bIQtIqHom} creek
> {targhHom} baby targh
> {QongDaq} bed
> {Qongpa'} bedroom
This last word, while obvious in meaning, is not really
justifiable by the grammar and vocabulary that we have. For
that matter, we don't know that Klingons even have what we
would call a bedroom. They may very well have one room which
they associate more with the storage of their weapons and such
than with their bed. In other words, I may sleep in my nuHpa'
(where else would I feel comfortable enough to sleep?), but I
may have no such name as "bedroom". After all, we don't call
bathrooms "toiletroom", even when they have toilets and don't
have bathtubs.
Think about it. A "half-bath" is a room with no bathtub. Go
figure.
The only negative comment I have at first glance is that you
seem to miss the point about tense in Klingon. Please don't
take this as an overall negative. I love the overall flavor of
this story. Meanwhile, Klingon does not have tense. Using
aspect as if it were tense doesn't really work. Aspect is used
to mark the degree of completion of the action relative to the
time setting of the story set by context.
In other words, you should use the perfective, etc. to
specifically mark verbs which describe a degree of completion
DIFFERENT from the overall time sense of the context. I'll try
to describe this better as we go along.
> // = double quotes; / = single quotes
>
> wa' jaj tachDaq jupwI' vIghompu'. 'Itlaw' ghaH. //qaStaH nuq?//
> vItlhobta'. //qatlh nuv'e' SoptaHbogh targh Darur?//
{wa' jaj} is probably idiomatic. It doesn't tell us anything.
Remember, "A Klingon may be inaccurate, but he is NEVER
approximate!" If you drop these two words, the sentence will
have exactly the same meaning as it does with them included.
{vIghompu'} is the first verb you have placed the aspect marker
on for the perfective where it does not belong. You clearly
want to say, "One day, I met my friend in a bar." Instead, you
have said, "One day, I had met my friend at a bar." See? It
would be much more Klingon in character were it:
tachDaq jupwI' vIghom.
If you don't like the sparceness of this, you could combine it
with the next sentence:
tachDaq jupwI' vIghomDI' 'Itlaw' ghaH 'e' vItu'.
Now, the meeting of the friend becomes the time context of the
rest of the story. It is not just "one day". It is the time
when you met your friend at the bar.
> jangta' jupwI': // /targh/ Dajatlh. tlhaQ wanI'.//
^^^
I will not repeat this advice throughout, but this {jangta'} is
the kind of place where you DON'T want {-ta'}. In the time
setting of the story, your friend had not completed the action
of answering yet. He answers. There should be no aspect marker.
I'll just mark all the aspect markers that should be removed
with "^"s below.
Your punctuation is unconventional for this list, but it seems
fine to me. We are making up any rules we use for punctuation,
anyway, since we have no indication yet that Klingon has any
(or doesn't have any).
> //nuqjatlh?// vItlhobqa'ta'.
^^^
> //toH, nI' lut, 'ach SoHvaD jItey'. lut tagh targh.//
> //targh - chay' bIjatlh?//
Probably should be {Dajatlh}. {targh Dajatlh}... {targh} is the
object, is it not?
> //jIqarmeH, /targhHom/ vIjatlhnIS. yI'Ij.//
> 'ej lutDaj taghta' jupwI':
^^^
> //Hatlh HopDaq Qoghmey vInejtaHvIS bIQtIqHom DopDaq jIleSlI'.
> jIleStaHvIS jISop. pay' ghogh vIQoy. /SuvwI' quv, HIQaH,/ jatlh ghogh,
> /jIghungqu'. jIHvaD Sop yInob./...
You probably mean to use {Soj} instead of {Sop}.
> jatlhwI' vInejtaH 'ach pagh vIleghlaH.
> jatlhqa' ghogh, /jIghungqu'. HIQaH. Sop yInob./
^^^
> //QIt bIQtIqHom tIDaq vIlegh. pa' targhHom machqu' vItu'. pay'
> jatlhqa' targhHom, /HIQaH!/ mumerqu' wanI'vam! not jatlhlaHbogh targh
> vIleghpu'. /chay' targh Hol vIyajlaH?/ vItlhob.
Cute story. Note that {vIleghpu'} is the correct use of the
perfective. In the time setting of the story, never had you
seen a targ who could talk.
> // /SuvwI' quv,/ jatlhqa' targhHom, /jIghung. jIHvaD SopHom
> yInob./
Again, you use {Sop} when you want {Soj}. Also, this is
stretching the use of {-Hom}. It is a diminutive, not just
"small". I might even go here for {jIHvaD loQ Soj yInob} or
{jIHvaD Soj puS yInob}, though perhaps {Soj mach} would work. I
probably would have said, {HIje'} and be done with it.
> toH, loQ targhmey vIpar, 'ach pImlaw' targhHomvam. vaj targhvaD
> SopHom vInob. /jatlhlaH targhmey 'e' vISovbe', /vIchel.
This {Soj}-{Sop} thing is such a small mistake, and you make it
so many times...
I think {vISovbe'} would be better WITH a perfective, since you
HAD not known that targs could speak. Meanwhile, this is no
longer the case, in the time setting of the story. You now know
that at least one targ can speak, right? This might even be a
good place for {jatlhlaH targhmey 'e' DaH vISovchoH.}
> // /SuvwI' quv,/ jatlhqa' targhHom, /jIbIrqu'. weplIjDaq jIlIgh
> 'e' yIchaw'./ //
>
> //Dachaw'ta''a'?// vItlhobta'.
There is a specific rule against using the perfective both for
the verb of speaking and the verb in the sentence which is
spoken. ~mark recently caught me on that one. Meanwhile, you
didn't want it for {tlhob} anyway. I also doubt you want it in
the quote, either, especially in the "accomplished" form. This
sentence works fine without it. Again, what you want is tense,
not aspect, and that is gotten through context, not suffix.
> //toH, le' targhHomvam; ngoDvetlh vIyajlaHchu'. wepwIjDaq lIgh
> targhHom 'e' vIchaw'. juHDaq jIjaHrupDI' wepvo' targhHom vIlel vIneH, 'a
> jatlh targhHom, /SuvwI' quv, jImob. jUHlIjDaq HInge'./ //
>
> pagh vIjatlhta'. nuq vIjatlhlaH?
^^^
> jatlhqa'ta' jup, //juHwIjDaq targhHom vInge'.
^^^
> juHDaq
> jItuQHa'moHtaHvIS wepvo' targhHom vIlelDI' jatlh targhHom, /SuvwI' quv,
> jIDoy'qu'. QongDaqlIjDaq jIQot 'e' yIchaw'./ //
I don't think you want {-moH} in the middle of
{jItuQHa'taHvIS}, unless you want {vItuQHa'moHtaHvIS}. That
suffix implies transitivity.
> //Dachaw'ta''a'?// vItlhobqa'ta'.
^^^ ^^^
> //toH, le' targhHomvam; jatlhlaH targhHomvam. vIchaw', 'ej
> QongDaqwIjDaq QottaH targhHom. puchpa'Daq jI'el 'ej tugh Qongpa'Daq
> jIchegh. QongDaqDaq QottaHbe' targhHom! Sut tuQbe'bogh be''e' 'IH Qup
> mojta' targhHom! /SuvwI'oy,/ jatlh be', /HIghoS./ //
Helllllllo...
> //nuqjatlh!// vIjachta'.
^^^
> //lutwIj DaHarbe''a'?// tlhobta' jupwI'.
^^^
> //chay' bIQub? vIHarbe'bej!//
>
> 'IQchoH jup. //jIyaj. QongDaqwIjDaq QottaHvIS targhHom juHDaq
> ghaHtaHbe' be'nalwI''e', 'a be' mojta'DI' targhHom pay' juHDaq cheghta'
> be'nal 'ej SIbI' Qongpa'Daq 'elta'. lutwIj Harbe'bejtaH be'nalwI' je.
> mu' pagh Har.//
Waaay cute. Note that the last sentence should probably be
{pagh mu' Har.} Here {pagh} is being used as a number, and as
such, it preceeds the noun being counted.
> lut ghItlhta' F. Szilagyi
> <Esperanto>vo' vImughta'.
>
majQa'. I enjoyed the story very much.
> Terry Donnelly
charghwI'