tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Apr 03 21:54:45 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: worn out
- From: [email protected] (Alan Anderson)
- Subject: Re: worn out
- Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 00:57:03 -0500
tIm writes:
>This is getting to be like explaining a joke; it's not worth the effort.
If the end result is more people understanding Klingon grammar, it is
definitely worth the effort being expended here.
>It has been said that many single sentences in English need two (or more)
>Klingon sentences to express them. My original intent was to to write two
>Klingon sentences; the first meaning "The bastards are wearing you out.(or
>tiring you, or saddening you)" <nIQopmoH taHqeqpu'(pagh nIDoy'moH pagh
>nI'IQmoH)> The second sentence was to mean "Don't allow them!"
"Don't allow them..." to do what? "Don't allow them" is not a complete
sentence even in English. Your original intent was nearly correct; the
second sentence should instead have meant "don't allow *that*." Please
accept the wisdom of some of the most skilled speakers on the list, and
recognize that the object of the verb {yIchaw'Qo'} actually must be the
entire first sentence, in the form of the pronoun {'e'}.
> <taHqeqpu'>is not the subject of the second sentence it is the antecedent of
>the pronoun, "them". So I was not guilty of making a two verb sentence,
>though it may look that way.
Look again. Your original sentence certainly has two verbs, as do your
subsequent attempts to modify it.
>I went out on a limb on this one and it broke. Ouch! What I was trying to say
>was, "Don't let yourself.", meaning don't allow yourself to be worn down,
>much the way a therapist might say to a client, "Don't let yourself play
>their games."
Klingon doesn't say things this way. A Klingon sentence would say this as:
{Qujmeychaj DaQuj 'e' yIchaw'Qo'} "Don't permit that you play their games."
>In conclusion, I'm a little disappointed that this is not a question of
>style. Most of the comments said that I had to be referring to the action
>and not the taHqeqpu'. I still disagree with this .
Please believe us. We have many years of cumulative experience with the
language, and we know what we're talking about. Sometimes we'll uncover
a new wrinkle when a new student comes at something from a fresh angle,
but I'm afraid this isn't one of those times. Bottom line: the object of
the verb {chaw'} is an action, not a person.
> If my two sentences
>were <nunIS taHqeqpu' yIchaw'Qo'>, I don't think there would be a problem.
With all due respect, your instincts about this are leading you astray.
These "two sentences" are *exactly* like the other one(s) in question.
What is the object of {yIchaw'Qo'}? It still looks like you're trying
to make it {taHqeqpu'}, and that's still not the way it works. The
correct object has to be the sentence {nunIS taHqeqpu'}, represented
by the pronoun {'e'}.
>Feeling the heat,but not leaving the kichen,
Thank you for not running away when the flames threaten to consume you.
You can learn only if you stay.
nImeQqu' 'e' buQDI' qulmeymaj DaHeDQo'mo', qatlho'.
bIratlhbe'chugh vaj bIghojlaHbe'.
-- ghunchu'wI' batlh Suvchugh vaj batlh SovchoH vaj