tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Jan 09 14:15:53 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: KLBC
- Date: Mon, 9 Jan 95 17:15:49 EST
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>; from "Laurel Beckley" at Jan 7, 95 8:29 pm
According to Laurel Beckley:
>
> Ok, I'm going to try another posting. This is my second. I had abit of
> trouble expressing my second sentence, so I'll give the English
> translation also. (Yes, it's about my cats again, but I speak to them in
> Klingon as I learn it, so it's easier for me.) :)
>
> tlha'chuq SajmeywIj. rut Suv bIH 'ach Sojmu' Suvbe'. Qav Sop be'.
>
> My pets chase each other. Sometimes they fight, but not over food. The
> female eats last.
>
> I couldn't find any Klingon words for over or about for the food, so I
> finially decided to use mu' for because of or due to. Ok, my second
> posting.
Right idea, but the suffix is {-mo'}, not {-mu'}. Actually,
what you are trying to do here is one of those areas where
Klingon is a little weak. We have not fully resolved how to
express the difference between "They do not fight because of
food," meaning that they may have other reasons to fight, but
not because of food, or meaning that food is the reason that
they avoid fighting. "not because" is something we cannot
clearly express because the rover {-be'} cannot follow a Type 9
verb suffix, like {-mo'}, and cannot be applied at all to a
noun using the noun Type 5 suffix {-mo'}.
Hmm. You might try:
rut Suv bIH, 'ach not Sojmo' Suv bIH.
Hmmm. Maybe this isn't such a big problem after all. Never mind.
Your solution probably works, but it could be interpreted that
sometimes they fight, but food is the reason they often avoid
fighting. If you say that they sometimes fight, but NEVER fight
because of food, the meaning is a little less ambiguous.
Anyway, the rest is fine.
> laurel
> [email protected]
charghwI'
--
\___
o_/ \
<\__,\
"> | Get a grip.
` |