tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Nov 26 19:42:57 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: KLBC: lut
- From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>
- Subject: RE: KLBC: lut
- Date: Wed, 27 Nov 96 03:18:20 UT
November 25, 1996 11:49 PM, jatlh Deborah Kay:
> lutwIj wa'maH 'ay'meyDaq vIwavbogh vIlI'.
Hmmm . . . "I transmit which I divide in my story's ten sections." I don't
think you're looking for {-Daq}. Some ideas:
wa'maHlogh lutwIj vIwav. vIlI'.
lutwIj wa'maH 'ay'mey vIlI'.
> SuStel, taghwI' pabpo' tajlIj Dalel
> 'ej yIpe'.
toH! DaH jItIv'eghchoH!
> lughbe'bogh vay' vIchoHqangbej.
{-choH} is intransitive. Make this {lughbe'bogh vay' vIchoHqangmoHbej}.
> rapbe' DIvI' Hol tlhIngan Hol je.
> tlhIngan Hol vImughDI', qechhmey QIjmeH neH DIvI' Hol vIlo'. wa'logh
{ghach}
> vIlo'. mu'tlheghvetlh vIchoHqang je.
<mu'tlheghvetlh vIchoHqangmoH je>.
Dalo'chu'ta'chugh, yIchoHmoHbej!
> pongmey: velqa, pe'lora, DareS, malIq
>
> ben law' wo' che'taHvIS qeylIS lIjHa', vIn cha' be'nI'.
<vIn> vIghovbe'. <yIn> bIjatlh 'e' DaHech'a'?
"Kahless the Unforgettable" would be {qeylIS lIjHa'lu'bogh}. {lIj} is not a
stative verb, so you can't use it as an adjective.
> velqa pe'lora je bIH pongchaj'e'.
> wa'maH wa' ben law' boghpu' be'Hompu'.
You kinda got stuck on the {ben law'} thing, hmm?
And do you really want the {-pu'} suffix there? You're saying what happened
at that time, not what was completed at that time, right?
{wa'maH wa' ben bogh be'Hompu'} would be "the girls were born 11 years ago."
Here's the catch: they were born 11 years before the time of the story, not
the present time. I don't think {ben} will work in this case. You can still
fall back on other ways of saying this, like {qaStaHvIS wa'maH wa' DIS yIn
be'Hompu'}.
> boghpu'DI' chaH, Hegh SoSchaj.
> chaH Qorgh vavchaj, DareS, 'ej muSHa'.
> nIbmo' qabmeychaj, lunghu'lu'eH, luSovnISlu'.
Typos: {lungu'lu'meH}
> pImqu' qa'chaj.
> Sagh velqa 'ej tam.
> chuS pe'lora 'ej Quch.
> 'ach HoS cha' 'ej yoH cha'.
> wa' Doch luneH neH. lujatlhtaH.
Be aware that using {jatlh} in this way is kinda iffy. It's not neccessarily
wrong, though.
> SuvwI'pu' moj luneHqu'.
> 'ach pagh be' SuvwI'pu' tu'lu'.
> chay' luta'? ben law' pagh be' SuvwI'pu' tu'lu'.
Did you want to write this twice?
> Sovlaw' vavchaj.
> SuvwI'na' mojpu' DareS 'ej wo' chermeH qeylIS voDleH QaHta'.
> vaj vavchaj lughoS.
> jatlh pe'lora, "joHwI', SuvwI'pu' moj luneH. juQaHlaH'a'?"
You've said this in the wrong person. {joHwI', SuvwI'pu' DImoj wIneH.}
> chel velqa, "vav, wISovnIS Qu'vam mawuqbejmo'."
You've got the wrong prefix on {wuq}: {ma-} takes no object.
I'm not sure if I like the wording. I might suggest doing this:
{vav, wISovnIS. Qu'vam wIta' 'e' wIwuqbej.}
> tup lo' vavchaj 'ej Qub.
"Their father uses a minute"? That's pretty weird. How about
{qaStaHvIS tup Qub vavchaj}
> "tajmeyraj boSuv 'e' vIghojmoHbe''a'?"
Ick. You're assuming {ghojmoH} is a seperate verb from {ghoj}. I read this
as "Did I not cause that you fight your knives to learn?" I've found that one
can always reword {ghojmoH} into something legal:
{tajraj bolo'meH 'ej SuSuvmeH SaghojmoHbe''a'?}
> "HIja', joHwI'," jang velqa.
> "ngoQ pIQijmeH, jIjatlh neH pe'lora.
Ooh, double-object heaven! Use {-vaD} (that's what it's there for!):
{SoHvaD ngoQ wIQIjmeH}
> jIQoS 'ach yapbe' paQDI'norghvam.
> naDevvo' maghoSQo'.
> mIw wIpabbogh ghoja'nIS."
Based on your English version, I'd guess that you have simply put {-nIS} on
the wrong verb. You certainly shouldn't put it on an imperative verb. "Need
to tell us!" doesn't make sense as a command.
*{mIw wIpabnISbogh ghoja'}
Still, there's the problem that this is not a direct quote. If it were, you'd
have to be able to reverse the order of the two parts: *{ghoja' mIw
wIpabnISbogh}. I'm not at all convinced that you can.
How about just asking the question: {chay' tajraj DIlo'chu'?}
> QeHtaHvIS, Qam vavchaj.
> "chotIch jay'. chovuvbe'."
> mejmoHmeH chaH joq ghopDaj.
This time it seems as if you put {-moH} on the wrong verb. Who's causing whom
to leave? I'd have said
{mejmeH chaH, ghopDaj joqmoH.} "He waves his hand for them to leave."
> qoy' pe'lora, "ghobe', vavoy, yIqejQo', mu'mey law' jatlhbe' velqa, 'ach
> jatlhDI' Doch Qubbogh jatlh neH.
> SoHvo' ghongeHQo'.
> paQDI'norghlIjvaD pIthlo','ach Dochmey chu' DIghojrupqu'."
It's not for the benefit of "teachings," it's *because* of "teachings."
{paQDI'norghlIjmo'}.
wa'maH 'ay'mey tu'lu''a'? Qu'vatlh! {{:-)
(majQa'! Dajbej. not be' SuvwI' luDellu'. Suvbej!)
--
SuStel
Beginners' Grammarian
Stardate 96906.6