tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Dec 15 11:09:38 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: story, part 5
- From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>
- Subject: RE: story, part 5
- Date: Sun, 15 Dec 96 19:07:52 UT
December 13, 1996 7:43 PM, jatlh Deborah Kay:
> qaD DoHlaHbe' motlh tambogh velqa.
Hmmm . . . can one use an adverbial on the verb of a relative clause? I've
always been unsure of this.
> DaHjaj jatlhDI', HojHa'chu'.
> "betleH tonSaw' qellu'DI', pe'lora po' law', jIH po' puS," jang velqa.
> pe'loravaD tlhle' la''a 'ej jatlh, "maHvaD laHmeyqoqvam tI'ang' 'ach ghojmeH
> tajmey DIlo'.
Just a stylistic note: I don't like the <command> 'ach <statement> structure
you've used here. It seems funny somehow. Consider making this two
sentences.
> wa' yIwIv." cha' lIng.
Another hmmm . . . I wonder if this is what {lIng} refers to. I don't think
so. I'd say use the word {lel}.
> Do' taj SuvwI' po'qu' ghaHbej.
> mangHom wIvDI' la''a', tagh tonSaw'.
> mangHom HoS law', pe'lora HoS puS.
> QapmeH pe'lora, 'ongnIS 'ej yoHnIS.
> pe'lora porgh botlhDaq DuQ mangHom.
> DeSdaj 'uch pe'lora 'ej cholqu'.
> 'uSDaj puppu'DI' 'ej QamDaj gho'qu'taHvIS, yIvbeHDaj pe' pe'lora.
The word for "stand" is {Qam}, and the word for "foot" is {qam}.
> rInbej.
It's over when she cut his tunic? That's all?!? Where's the blood?!? {{:-)
> toH", jatlh la''a' wIHqu', "DaH Sovraj QI' Dup vIchov."
You've said "Your knowledge's military strategy." Instead, say {QI' Dup
Sovraj}.
> Qub DareS, "lujangtaHvIs, vI'IjnIS.
{jI'IjnIS}. There's no need for an object, and I doubt it can take one
anyway.
> yutaHvIS mayHa'laHbe' la''a', vItu'chugh."
{yu'taHvIS}.
{tu'} refers to noticing something, or discovering something. What you want
is {bej}. On MSN, Okrand has said that {bej} refers to the act of
continuously looking at something.
yu'taHvIS mayHa'laHbe' la''a', vIbejchugh.
> la''a'vaD jatlh vavchaj, "Satlhej Dayu'taHvIS."
> HoSghajbogh SuvwI'na' ghaHmo' chaw'laHQo' la''a.
I'm not sure I understand how you've used {chaw'laHQo'} "refuses to be able to
permit" here. I'd say
SuvwI'na' HoSghaj ghaHmo' DareS'e', QochlaHbe' la''a'.
> qaStaHvIS loS rep, be'nI'pu'vaD QI' Dup QI' tuHmey je qelbogh Dochmey law'
> yu'taH la''a'.
The commandant interrogated those things? I thought he interrogated the
sisters! I see what you've done with the {-vaD}, but I'm not ready to start
accepting this usage. Especially when you can recast!
qaStaHvIS loS rep, QI' Dup Sov, QI' tuHmey Sov je chovmeH, be'nI'pu' yu'taH
la''a'.
> nom lujangchu'.
> Dojbej Sovchaj 'e' tu' vavchaj.
> 'ampaS 'elrup be'Hompu' 'ej botlaHbe' la''a' vItwI'Hey DanISmo'.
> 'ach chaH tung la''a' neH. Qatlhqu' yInchaj 'e' 'Ip.
Closer to your English version:
yInchaj Qatlhqu'moH 'e' 'Ip.
> tlheDmoHmeH mighqangbogh mangHompu' tungHa'.
> wa' Hogh luSIQlaHbe' 'e' Qub la''a'.
Who will not be able to endure? It's a little vague. Consider putting
{be'Hompu'} or something similar after {luSIQlaHbe'}.
> qeq yotlhDaq ghomqa' mangHomghom.
> chaHvaD jatlh la''a', "Sovchaj lutoblaw' be'Hompu'vam.
> naDev HaDlaH. ghomHa'."
> QuchHa' mangHompu' 'ej ja'chuq, "Dochvam wIcherghlaHbe'."
{Doch} refers to an object, a "thing." Perhaps you'd do better to use the
word {ghu'}.
> "velqa, pe'lora, ramvam naDev SuratlhlaH 'ej wa'leS DIS wa'DIch mangHompu'
> bomoj," jatlh la''a'.
I wonder how Klingons organize their students?
> lujangpa', jatlh vavchaj, "nIteb puqbe'pu'wI'vaD jIjatlh."
> bot la''a' 'e' ngIlbe'.
> "velqa, pe'lora, Suratlh lIneHbe' mangHompu'.
Typo? {luneHbe'}.
> 'e' neHbe'ba' la''a'.
You can't use {'e'} with {neH}. I know, you're referring to an entirely
different sentence, but you can't do it. You'll have to repeat yourself, or
just leave the object unspecified. I don't see a problem with {neHbe'ba'} as
a complete sentence here.
> ngoQraj bochavmeH, Subech 'e' vIlegh.
> DaH SuwuqnIS. Suratlhrupbej'a'?"
> jang pe'lora, "HIja', vav, wISov, 'ach maratlh wIneHqu'."
> "velqa, nuq bIjatlh?"
Hmmm . . . can you substitute {nuq} for an entire quotation/sentence? I don't
know . . .
> "qaH, SuvwI'pu' DImojmeH, wamI'vam wISIQ,"
Did you mean {wanI'vam}? I think {ghu'} would be better in this case, too.
> QamDu'DajDaq tor 'ej ghopDu'DajDaq QuchDu'chaj lan.
{qam}.
> "qeylIs mu'mey lIDevjaj. Qapla'."
Did you intentionally reverse the order of this sentence? Just in case you
didn't, it should be
lIDevjaj qeylIS mu'mey.
> la''a'vaD jatlh DareS, "batlh be'HomwI'pu' tIQorgh."
> "lu," nep la''a'.
majQa', Deborah!
--
SuStel
Beginners' Grammarian
Stardate 96957.7