tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Jun 21 22:11:50 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: Dishonoured by my actions
- From: [email protected] (Alan Anderson)
- Subject: Re: KLBC: Dishonoured by my actions
- Date: Sat, 22 Jun 1996 00:15:36 -0500
~Doq writes:
>vIlegh vavwI' SoSwI' je [I see my mother and father]
Since your parents are the object of the sentence, they must come
before the verb. You surely know this; you just slipped up here.
>lajbeHbe' juhwIj [My house is not prepared to welcome them.]
"My house is not set up to accept..." accept what? I think a sentence
like this calls for at least a pronoun to resolve the ambiguity of the
null verb prefix. {chaH} at the beginning would clarify it a lot.
(Interesting translation of "welcome" here, by the way.)
>tlhIngan Hol jIghItlhtaH [I continue to write Klingon]
There's an object here; the verb prefix should be {vI-}.
>juhwIj vISay'be' [I do not clean my house for them]
"I am not clean my home." {Say'} means "be clean"; "clean" would be
{Say'moH} "cause to be clean". There's nothing in the Klingon that
says "for them" -- to add it, you would put {chaHvaD} at the front.
>batlh jIvangbe' [I have misplaced my honor]
"I do not act with honor." It's an okay translation of the idea, but
why do your english words differ so much from the Klingon ones?
>jIpwIj 'oH bIj Hegh ghap [Punishment or death is my penalty]
In a "to be" sentence, an explicit subject must have the suffix {-'e'}.
This is probably open to debate, but I think each of the nouns in the
combination should get {-'e'} individually rather than trying to put a
noun suffix on a conjunction. Adding that suffix would also help to
indicate that {bIj} and {Hegh} are nouns here; since they can also be
verbs, this sentence was a little hard for me to parse at a glance.
>jIlajrup [I am prepared to accept.]
That's exactly what it says, but in context, this seems like a very
strange thing to say. Do you mean you are prepared to accept your
penalty? Even if you don't explicitly write the object, or even a
pronoun representing it, the object is implied; the verb prefix would
make more sense to me as {vI-}.
>One question--what's the difference between <batlh> and <quv>?
{batlh} "with honor" (adv), "honor" (noun)
{quv} "be honored" (verb), "honor" (noun)
The adverb and verb meanings are obviously distinct; the issue must be
what, if anything, distinguishes the noun meanings.
I see them like this: {batlh} refers to the code of actions that define
the behavior of an honorable warrior. {quv} refers to something like a
gesture of respect or a token of esteem which causes someone to be honored.
But I'm basing this on my own particular reading of the glosses; there's no
canon usage that gives me any reason to think this way.
-- ghunchu'wI' batlh Suvchugh vaj batlh SovchoH vaj