tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Nov 18 15:31:45 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: KLBC - Stephen Hawking
- From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>
- Subject: RE: KLBC - Stephen Hawking
- Date: Mon, 18 Nov 96 22:08:21 UT
jatlh Kalos:
> >{De'Qaw'wI'} seems a little inadequate to describe "virus" in general. At
the
> >least, you should consider {De'wI' Qaw'wI'}. I'd probably go for {De'wI'
> >rop}.
>
> Your right it's better but shouldn't it be a compond noun without a space?
> De'wI'rop
The rules about whether or not we are allowed to form compound nouns are a bit
vague. I sometimes believe that combining nouns to form compounds is only
accepted when the word formed has already been lexicalized by Klingons (i.e.,
it would be found in one of their dictionaries). Still, we don't know this
for sure. I tend to try to play it safe, by avoiding these nouns whenever
possible.
In this case, {De'wI' rop} would mean "computer's disease," and is perfectly
understandable (I think) and correct without shoving two nouns together.
Trust me, it can get pretty hard to read those nouns when you've got several
in a row. And when you speak out loud, the result will be the same anyway.
Who knows? Perhaps there is an as-yet undiscovered word for "computer virus."
> >yIn 'oH De'wI' rop'e' net qelnIS.
> >One needs to consider that a computer virus is life.
>
> Here's when I start loosing you.
> 1. Why did you topicalize rop?
When you've got a "to be" construction (TKD section 6.3), you must always
topicalize the subject.
> 2. Why did you say {yIn 'oH De'wI' rop} and not just {yIn De'wI' rop}. Why
> use the extra pronoun {'oH}?
majQa'! I was getting caught up in the original text and your initial
translation attempt that I never saw this. Good catch! {yIn De'wI' rop}
works MUCH better.
> >Qaw'taH neH yIn wIchenmoHta'bogh
> >The life which we have created merely destroy.
>
> I'm still unsure on this one:
> 1. I would have written this as: {wIchenmoHta'bogh yIn}
> Isn't "yIn" the subject of this relative clause?
No. The relative clause is "the life which we have created." What is being
done? "Creating." Who is doing it? "We." Therefore, "we" must go in the
subject position. What do we create? "Life." This goes in the object
position.
yIn wIchenmoHta'bogh maH.
The life which we have created.
Note that this could also be interpreted as "We who have created life," but if
I remove the optional {maH}, the only available head noun for this relative
clause is {yIn}.
> 2. If I understand what's being said {wIchenmoHta'bogh yIn} would the be
> the
> relative clause phrase and as such it is treated as a noun in the
> obj-vrb-noun phrase.
{yIn wIchenmoHta'bogh} would be consider the subject in the OBJ - VERB - SUBJ
structure.
> So {Qaw'taH neH wIchenmoHta'bogh yIn} would be
> correct
> as you've got it. Right?
Qaw'taH neH yIn wIchenmoHta'bogh.
> To say {wIchenmoHta'bogh yIn Qaw'taH neH} would be
> "We only destoy the life which we create" which is obviously not what we
are
> trying to say. Did I get it right? Without the proper prefixes.
To say "we only destroy the life which we create," you'd say
yIn wIchenmoHta'bogh wIQaw'taH neH.
> >yIn wIchenmoHta'bogh wIrur.
> >We resemble the life which we have created.
>
> Cool but backwards. I'm trying to say the life which we have created
> resembles us rather that we resemble it.
> Wouldn't I say: "nurur wIchenmoHta'bogh yIn"
> Note I changed the "yIn" to the subject here as well.
Keep the {yIn} where it is:
nurur yIn wIchenmoHta'bogh.
SuStel
Beginners' Grammarian
Stardate 96884.1