tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Dec 17 18:13:54 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: KLBC: story, part 6
- From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>
- Subject: RE: KLBC: story, part 6
- Date: Wed, 18 Dec 96 01:29:02 UT
December 17, 1996 9:14 AM, jatlh Deborah Kay:
> naghmey chenmoHbogh pa'Daq be'Hompu' tlhap mangHom.
{naghmey chenmoHbogh pa'Daq} means "to a room which makes stones." You can
probably say {nagh pa'Daq}, or if you're really desperate, {nagh veHmey
ghajbogh pa'Daq}.
Also, I wouldn't use "take" in this sense. I take money. I take a disruptor.
I don't take a person. I "bring" them (this one could be argued, too, but I
think it's all right), or "lead" them.
nagh pa'Daq be'Hompu' Dev mangHom.
> bIrbogh pa' Hurgh 'el be'nI'pu'.
Ooh! You did *so* well with the {bIrbogh pa' Hurgh}, but you forgot to use
the {lu-} suffix on {'el}!
bIrbogh pa' Hurgh lu'el be'nI'pu'.
> pa'Daq pagh tu'lu'qu'!
Don't forget the word {chIm}.
> chuStaHvIs lojmIt SoQmoH mangHom 'ej ngaQ. rav bIrDaq leSlaH neH.
> pawDI' po, jachbogh ghogh Qoy be'nI'pu'. "pevem 'ej peghom!"
I don't know if Klingons say "When the morning arrives." Since this is a
timestamp, all you need to do is state the time.
po, jachbogh ghogh Qoy be'nI'pu'.
> lojmIt poSmoHlu'. "peqet," ra' ghogh.
> yej yotlhDaq qet cha' be'nI' mangHompu' chu' je.
> ghom chenmoHchu' 'ej vIHbe'.
> mangHompu'vaD jatlhqu' la''a'. "bopabnISbogh chutmey peQoy.
> naDev loS vatlh rep peghom 'ej reNuD mangHom la' jIH je.
> Dat peqet, not peyIt.
> DuSaQDaq Suba' 'e' chaw' neH.
Who permits this? I think you should go with
DuSaQDaq Suba' net chaw' neH.
> nIvwI'pu'vaD SujatlhtaHvIS, reH {neS} bolo'.
Daj.
> DIS wejDIch mangHom bolobbogh toy cha' mangHom chu'.
> qaSpu'DI' cha'maH wej vatlh rep, SuQonglaH.
Again, with a time reference, you don't need any verbs.
cha'maH wej vatlh rep SuQonglaH.
> Hoch vIjatlhbogh boyaj'a'?"
> jang mangHompu' chu' , "HIja', la''a'!"
heh . . . yajchu' qaH! {{:-)
> jotchu' be'nI'pu', vavchaj chutmey rotlhmo' je.
{rotlh} is a stative verb:
jotchu' be'nI'pu', rotlhmo' je vavchaj chutmey.
> "chippu'DI' jIbraj, vaj HIpmeyraj luchraj je tIHev. DaH, ghomHa'," jachqu'
> la''a'.
I don't think the {vaj} works here. At least, it's weird.
> nom yej yotlh tlheD mangHompu' chu'.
{tlheD} is one of those verbs which we don't know if it can take an object, or
a noun with a Type 5 suffix. Is it
nom yej yotlhvo' tlheD mangHompu' chu'
or your sentence? The safer assumption is to add the {-vo'}.
> ba'laHbe'mo', tornIS jIbchaj chIptaHvIS manghom.
{mangHom}. There's quite a difference!
> velqa jIb chIpmeH, taj tIn lo' mangHom.
> qamDajDaq pum 'IHbogh jIbDaj qIj.
> DaQmey tIqHa'qu' ghajlaH neH mangHompu' chu'.
Hmmm . . . somewhere in TKD it mentions that Klingons wear their hair long
(nowadays) as a way of showing that they are not afraid of their enemies. It
gives the enemy a possible way to hold the Klingon. One wonders why Klingon
cadets would be required to cut their hair.
> velqavaD choljah nob manghom. "vIbagh," ra'.
Your spelling is going. {choljaH}, {mangHom} and {yIbagh}.
> ghopDu'Daq jib tiqHa' boS velqa 'ej ta'.
> rap Hoch mangHom chu' mach.
Ack! I had to read the English to realize you meant {nach}.
> Hoch ghojmoHlu' qaSpu'DI' Soch jajmey, jIpraj chIpqa'lu'meH, naDev pechegh.
Are you using {Hoch ghojmoHlu'} as a verb of saying? That's the only way I
can figure this out.
> HIpmey tuQmoHpu'DI', yej yolthDaq ghomqa' mangHompu' chu'.
> Hoch tu' managHom la' 'ej HIpmey ghIH nej.
{mangHom}?
> wa' leghchugh, burghDaq mangHom qIpmeH, naQDaj lo'.
Purely from a stylistic point of view:
wa' leghchugh, naQDaj lo' 'ej mangHom burgh qIp.
> pup pe'lora HIp, 'ach qIp je.
> mevmeH, DesDu'Daj pep velqa.
> velqa' tlhe' 'ej yavDaq pummeH velqa qIptaH.
"Turn to Velka" is a bit weird for Klingon, and I don't think it's {velqa
tlhe'} "he turns Velka." At least, it should be {velqaDaq tlhe'}.
> "yIHu'," jang mangHom la' .
> QIt Qam velqa. velqavaD jatlh ghaH, "Sun yInISQo'qa'."
{-Qo'} must always come last, except for Type 9s.
Sun yInISqa'Qo'.
> boQvaD jatlh ghaH, "ramvam pe'loravaD bIj."
Hmmm . . . I think this would be better expressed with {ramvam pe'lora yIbIj}.
> mangHom la' jang velqa, "velqa jIHneS."
> la''a'vaD bep mangHom la', "nIbmo' qabchaj, vIngu'laHbe'."
> "Qaybe'," jang la''a.
{qay'be'}
> velqa ghoS 'ej qutluchDaj lel.
> nom qevpobDaj pe'.
> rap qevpob'e' qIpta'bogh la''a'.
> qabDajDaq QaDtaHvIS 'Iw, la''a'vaD leghqu' velqa 'ej bIrchoH minDu'Daj.
Another stylistic note: I think {bejqu'} would work better than {leghqu'}.
What do you think?
> 'ampaSDaq ratlhrupqu'.
> rIn lut 'ay' javDIch. (SuStel, yap'a' 'Iw?)
'Iw? jIyajbe'.
--
SuStel
Beginners' Grammarian
Stardate 96963.9