tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Apr 14 09:16:16 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: TLHINGAN-HOL digest 465
- From: Nick Nicholas <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: TLHINGAN-HOL digest 465
- Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 01:54:38 +0000
- Organization: University of Melbourne, Dept. of Linguistics
- References: <[email protected]>
wa'DIch: DaH *Hamlet* paqwIj vIHevpu' je jIH, 'ej muQuchqu'moHqu'. nabmaj
botungHa'pu'mo' 'ej lIbelmoHpu'mo', qatlho' 'ej lItho'ba' je Qu' tlhejwI'pu'wI'.
paqDaq tlhIHvaD taQchugh vay', pagh pab mIwmaj boqelqangchugh, vaj peQum, 'e'
wItlhob!
cha'DIch: berghqa'law' Okrand. pab wIwuqpu'bogh wuqbe'law' :-) .
> Date: Sat, 13 Apr 1996 12:58:50 -0400
> From: [email protected]
> Subject: 'arghpu' jajwIj
> Message-ID: <[email protected]>
> paq "tlhIngan tIgh: SuvwI' DevmeH paq" vIlaDpu'
> DaH law' vItlhobnIS
De' law' Datlhob, qar'a'?
> mu' chu' 'oH'a' mu' Hutlh'e' (lacks, v; without, sv)
HIja'.
> paq mIch 65Daq {ghIj qet jaghmeyjaj} tu'lu'
Do'Ha' :-)
> vIghItlhchugh {ghIj qetjaj jaghmeylI'} vItam
vItamrup jIH je. taQ "HIq mu'tlheghmey" (toasts) pab, maHvaD 'e' tobqangpa'
Okrand. vaj chIch mu'tlheghvam pab mISmoHlaw' (DIpDaq "-jaj" mojaQ rarDI');
'ej chIch mISmoHpu'mo', tlhIngan Hol pabna' vay' wIwuqlaHbe', mu'tlheghvam
wIqelDI'.
> *Adverb* Da {ghIj} lo' mu'tlheghvam
'e' vIwuqchu'Qo'. 'ach pIj "DIp tlheghHeymey" (verb serialisation) lo'law'
Okrand...
> paq mIch 74Daq {Hoch tlhIngan} tu'lu'
> mI'mey DaDI' Hoch pagh je vaj DIp 'etDaq DIlannIS'a'
> DIp cha'DIch bIHbe''a'
qar, 'ej ben 'e' wIwuqpu', 'ach 'e' qellaw'Qo' Okrand. vaj mI' DIp je Daba'
"Hoch".
> paq mIch 104Daq {vaj toDuj Daj ngeHbej DI vI'} tu'lu'
> {ngeHbej DI vI'chugh vaj toDuj Dajlu'} vImaS HIjang
ngo' mu'tleghvam; TKDDaq, Star Trek MovieDaq je tu'lu'. (pab vIqelqu'nISmo',
DIvI' Hol vIlo'choHnIS:) Once again, I think Okrand demonstrates he's less
finicky about the logic of the language than we are. The fact that we insisted
against "jajvetlh" instead of "qaSDI' jajvetlh" demonstrates, I think, we've
learnt quite a bit about logic. Okrand wasn't of the same mind. Likewise, in
noting that there's a difference between "person X tests Y using process Z" and
"process Z tests Y", we've learnt quite a bit about verb valency; again, Okrand
didn't think it necessary to make such a distinction. Not in itself bad: lots
of natural languages have such blurrings (although it always irritates me when
Klingon blurs things the selfsame way English does). But this probably has some
far-reaching consequences for Klingon verb usage. I just really hope Okrand
doesn't end up doing in Klingon what happens in English, and make intransitives
and their causatives equivalent (so that 'the game begins' translates as 'tagh
Quj', and 'he began the game as 'Quj tagh' --- and not 'taghmoH'). I have a
sneaking suspicion he might, you know. And he'll have some stiff resistance
amongst the Esperantists in the community! :-)
> paq mIch 105Daq {not qoHpu''e' neH ghIjlu'} tu'lu'
> DIvI' Hol {Never are only fools feared} DaH vIyaj 'e' vIHar
teHlaw'. "only" Qum je "neH" 'e' 'ollaw' mu'tlhegh. ("merely" Qum, naDev net
maqlaH, 'a tobmeH Qatlh.)
> paq mIch 125Daq {baj} tu'lu' (earn, v)
> mu' chu' 'oH'a'
HIja'.
> paq HamletDaq mu' {beQwI'} tu'lu' nIb *shelf*
> 'ach Delmu' 'oH mu' {beQ}'e'
> Delmu'Daq mojaQ {-wI'} wIrarlaH'a' toH teH wanI'vam 'e' vItul
ben 'e' wIqel, 'ej 'e' wIHonmeH meqna' wItu'be'. chay' wIngach 'e' boqaw'a',
*Seqram* *ghuy'Do* je?
--
A Frenchman once observed to me: Nick Nicholas. PhD student,
On the edge of the Rubicon Linguistics, University of Melbourne.
Men don't go fishing. [email protected]
--- Alice Goodman, _Nixon in China_. http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~nsn