tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Jan 27 20:19:25 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Another try at some Klingon...
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Another try at some Klingon...
- Date: Fri, 27 Jan 95 23:19:17 EST
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>; from "achghuQ the Klingon Warrior" at Jan 25, 95 8:31 pm
Hmmm. I got a little behind, due to my fever and associated
weakness and see that I'm apparently duplicating some of
~mark's stuff... Apologies. Anyway, trudging onward...
According to achghuQ the Klingon Warrior:
>
> nuqneH,
> I have been practicing some more, and have come up with this.
> How does it stand up grammatically?
>
> chalDaq puv puvlaHbogh Ha'DIbaH'oy' tin.
Well, as you ask below, I think puvlaHbogh Ha'DIbaH works great
to describe a bird while it is standing, but it seems a little
redundent to describe it while it is flying. In this particular
sentence, you could lose puvlaHbogh and the sentence would lose
no meaning. Meanwhile, to your credit, it is a very good
sentence. It says exactly what you want it to say.
> bIng juHDaq QongtaHvIS puvlaHbogh Ha'DIbaH mach.
Below, you explain that you meant "below, in the house", this
literally means, "In the area below's house". I personally hear
{-Daq} as "at", keeping in mind that it is a more inclusive
term than English usually implies, synonymous to "within the
bounds of the space occupied by". Anyway, I think this is
perfect for what you want. The rest of your sentence, however
has no main verb. If you drop the {-vIS}, I think you'll have
what you want.
> QongtaH ghaH! QongtaH ghaH!
> Sal Hov wov!
Beautiful imagery! vIparHa'qu'!
> ngab retlh yavDaq 'engbogh.
The last pair of syllables is not a word. A locative, like
yavDaq, belongs in FRONT of it's verb. 'eng is not a verb,
despite the suffix. The only visable verb is ngab and I don't
see how any of this is supposed to tie together.
I was really getting into this, and now, I've lost something
crucial.
> po QaQ! po QaQ jatlh puvlaHbogh Ha'DIbaH mach.
Kill it quickly! It's a flying tribble!
> ...What about retlh yavDaq 'engbogh for 'clouds which are next to
> the ground'? Does that approximate 'fog'? Is there a better way to say fog?
That REALLY does not work for fog. You can't put a verb suffix
on a noun like that. You needed a verb here. Perhaps:
ngab yav So'bogh 'eng'e'.
> I think I have begun to get a grasp of aspect. Does -laH and -lI' turn
> a verb into a 'am verb-ing' structure? For example jIQong is I sleep, jIQongtaH
> is I am sleeping, right? Thank you very much for your help.
>
> Qapla'
> achghuQ
charghwI'
--
\___
o_/ \
<\__,\
"> | Get a grip.
` |