tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri May 31 22:35:47 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC
- From: [email protected] (Alan Anderson)
- Subject: Re: KLBC
- Date: Sat, 1 Jun 1996 00:39:12 -0500
Thomas Zeman writes:
>Here is my first try at expressing some (very basic) thoughts in tlhIngan
>Hol. Let me know how I do.
>
>tera'ngan jiH. <I am a Terran.>
This is fine (except for the spelling -- there is no letter {i} in Klingon).
>tlhIngan Hol jIghojtahmo' suvwI'pu' Hol 'oh. <I am learning
>(continuously) the Klingon language because it is the language of warriors.>
"Because I (cont.) learn the Klingon language, it is the warriors' language."
Close, but you've put {-mo'} on the wrong verb. Verb suffixes attach to the
verbs in the clause they are connected to. You also need to use the correct
verb prefix; you used {jI-} which means there is no object in the sentence,
but {tlhIngan Hol} is the object of {ghoj} so you need to use {vI-}. Again,
be careful with how you capitalize the letters. It might seem silly that we
insist on {D} and {H} and {I} and {S} being always upper case, but they're
that way for a reason (to remind the speaker that they don't sound the same
way the letters do in english) and that's how we're used to seeing them.
>jatlhchu' jIneH. <I want to speak clearly.>
This is translated into Klingon as "I want [that] I speak clearly." There
isn't an "infinitive" in Klingon grammar; you must use a complete sentence
to express the meaning. The first word needs to be {jIjatlhchu'}. You're
consistently using {jI-} where {vI-} is appropriate. Don't forget that the
suffixes describe the object of the sentence as well as the subject.
>qep'a' wejDIchdaq jIjaHchugh yap huchwIj. <I will go to the Third Great
>Meeting if my money is sufficient.>
"If I go to the third convention my money is sufficient." The prefixes are
okay, but {-chugh} is on the wrong verb. The subordinate clause you used is
"if my money is sufficient", which is translated {yapchugh HuchwIj}. There
is no "if" on "I will go to the third convention."
>tugh jIwuq. <Soon I will decide.>
This is fine.
>I am looking forward to your critiques! Also, I have noted the custom of
>people assuming "Klingon names" here. After much searching, I am
>considering calling myself: qejwI', as in "The Grouchy One", or "He who
>is grouchy". (Those who know me best say this would be appropriate.)
>Opinions anyone?
Not that I have a leg to stand on, but I'm distressed by the number of
"names" that end with {-wI'}. Names don't have to be nouns; they don't
even have to be translatable. (Though it is handy if they are able to
be *pronounced*.)
>One further question: how would you say the "fencer" in tlhIngan Hol (as
>in someone who fights using a sword)? Everything I've come up with so far
>has been a whole sentence.
"Someone who fights using a sword" can be translated with a relative clause
using the verb suffix {-bogh}. First it has to be rearranged to get rid of
the untranslatable "with": "someone who uses a sword in order to fight".
Then I would simplify it to "a fighter who uses a sword" and translate it
{'etlh lo'bogh SuvwI''e'}. This phrase can be used just about anywhere a
noun can be used.
It is possible to say {'etlh lo'wI'} "sword user" and approach the meaning.
It might also work to try {'etlh SuvwI'} "sword fighter", but this is a bit
ambiguous. It makes perfect sense if you already know what you're trying
to say, but someone who doesn't understand it to begin with would not find
your meaning obvious.
-- ghunchu'wI' batlh Suvchugh vaj batlh SovchoH vaj