tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Jan 17 14:35:45 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: easy sentences
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: easy sentences
- Date: Tue, 17 Jan 95 17:35:40 EST
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>; from "Marc Ruehlaender" at Jan 17, 95 11:24 am
According to Marc Ruehlaender:
>
> > > 2. This suitcase is mine.
> > > DochwIj 'oH lengwI' ngaSwI'vam'e'.
...
> > Anyway, I'd just say {tepwIj 'oH Dochvam'e'}.
>
> What I mainly wanted to know: can you put the emphasise on
> MINE the way I did?
I don't think so, except for tagging on something obvious, like
{'ej DaHotchugh vaj qaHoHbej.}
> > > 5. This is where I work.
> > > DaqvamDaq jIvum.
> >
> > It would be much better to use {naDev} than {DaqvamDaq}.
>
> Wouldn't naDev require me to be where I'm talking about?
I would expect the same of {DaqvamDaq}, given the sense of THIS
vs. THAT. The point is that DaqvamDaq is a neologism. It is not
in TKD or any other canon and it looks weird, and doesn't
really mean anything except {naDev}, which is in TKD and other
canon.
> So if I'm only pointing at it, can I still use "here"?
Wellll, perhaps if you were pointing to a spot on a map. If you
were pointing across the room, then I'd use {pa'}.
> > > 6. There was a large crowd.
> > > DaqvetlhDaq ghom'a' tIn tu'lu'.
> >
> > It would be much better to use {pa'} than {DaqvetlhDaq}. This
> > is a fine use of {tIn}. Also, this would more accurately be
> > something like, "A large crowd was over there," since your
> > English sentence sounds too much like the more idiomatic,
> > "There was an old woman who lived in a shoe..." which has
> > nothing to do with "there" as a specific location.
>
> I didn't think of pa'. I see it would be better. However
> I don't understand what you're saying next. Do you mean
> that pa' does not refer to a specific location, but
> Daqvetlh does. (By the way I only put it in my sentence
> because I felt like a place adjunct was required. The
> "there" of the original is taken care of by tu'lu', isn't
> it?)
No. I'm talking about your English, not your Klingon. When you
say, "There was a large crowd," it sounds more like "There was
an old lady, who lived in a shoe," or "There once was a prince
who lived in a biiiiiiig castle." It is the kind of "there"
which is handled by {tu'lu'}, but has nothing to do with
location. That's why I recommended a rephrasing of the English
part to point more to a location.
> > > 7. It was impossible to go further.
> > > DuHbe' Duvqa'ghach.
> >
> > This might work, but it sounds cranked a little towards being
> > idiomatic to English. I'd expect something more like
> > {maDuvqa'laHbe'}. Klingons tend to like to describe the action
> > less in the abstract ("to go further"? For WHO to go further?)
> > and more in the concrete. The verb {DuH} belongs more to nouns
> > like {Qu'} than to verb phrases packed into noun forms.
>
> Does this mean that you "can't" say (in the sense that it's
> not good Klingon) it's impossible for ANYONE? WHOEVER gets
> there will find it so?
> I'd have used -laH if one could combine it with -lu'
> however, so I used DuH and -ghach to express a general
> "one cannot".
I see your point. While it is not a statement I would tend to
make (favoring that I point out who was unable to continue
onward), I don't think your statement is WRONG. It just looks
kinda odd, and might inspire a lot of immitation in statements
that are less defendable.
> > > 8. It was a pity the weather was so bad.
> > > QaHHa'laHpu' SuSmey. vaj moghnISlu'.
> >
> > "The wind was able to hinder. So one needs to be frustrated."?
>
> I wanted to say: "The winds turned unable to help." that's
> why I used -Ha' - bad luck it's only a rover by name }}:-{
I think that {-be'} carries this sense of negation enough to
cover your desired "unable". What is the difference between
"unable" and "not able" anyway?
> And yes, I thought "one has to be frustrated" is a way
> to express "it's a pity". I was thinking about 'IQ instead
> of mogh but rejected it, because it seemed too sentimental.
Okay, though when I see {-nIS}, I tend to look for at least the
implication if not explicit expression of a {-mo'} or {-meH} on
some other verb nearby.
> > HoSqu'mo' SuS maDo'Ha'.
> >
> > "Because the wind was strong, we were unlucky."
> >
> > or
> >
> > SuS HoSqu'mo' maDo'Ha'.
> >
> > "Because of strong wind, we were unlucky."
>
> This would mean, that you set out to do it, but the wind
> spoilt it, right? I understand the original, that because
> of the weather you didn't even start to do it.
I guess I don't get it. Whether the wind spoils an attempt to
execute, or that it spoils an attempt to start to execute,
either way, we are unlucky.
> >
> > I'm not certain whether or not {SuS} is a word that would
> > normally be pluralized. Does it refer to a single gust, or to
> > wind in general?
> >
> What makes you think it can't be both?
I guess I should look at canon.
> Qapla'
> Marc 'Doychlangan'
charghwI'
--
\___
o_/ \
<\__,\
"> | Get a grip.
` |