tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Sep 01 14:12:14 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: {-vaD} (oh, and {vaj} too !)
- From: [email protected] (HoD trI'Qal)
- Subject: Re: KLBC: {-vaD} (oh, and {vaj} too !)
- Date: Sun, 1 Sep 1996 17:13:21 -0400
>
>HoD trI'Qal, qaH,
>
> ^
>(errm, there isn't a word for "ma'am" by any chance, is there ?)
There sure is, and you just used it. {{:)
Actaully, we aren't sure if that is an acceptable use of <qaH> or not.
Strangely enough, the rest of the language appears to be gender
non-specific, except for the verbs for "to marry". I certainly don't mind
being called <qaH>.
Also, the Klingons being a militaristic society, perhaps this is "sir" as
our Armed Forces use it: gender non-specific.
You also should have had the HoD after my name. {{:) (that's okay... I
often forget, too...)
You also should have flagged my name as a name. {{:)
>>From TKD page 180, the phrase
>
>{yaSvaD taj nobpu' qama'}
>
>means "The prisoner gave the officer the knife"
>(or, presumably, "The prisoner gave the knife to the officer")
>
>
>Does this mean that I could say
>
>{puqvaD lutwIj vIja'pu'}
>
>to mean "I told my story to the child" or "I told the child my story" ??
It most assuredly does!
What you are talking about here is an Indirect Object (IO).
I guess I need to talk a little bit about objects.
There are two kinds of objects to a sentence: Direct Object(DO), and the
Indirect Object(IO). The DO answers one of these questions: "What/who is
being <verb>ed?" In your example, you would have to ask "What is being
told?" Answer: "my story". Therefore, "my story" is the direct object of
your sentence.
The IO answers one of these questions: "To/for whom/what is <direct
objecting> being <verb>ed?" In your example, it would be "To whom is my
story being told?" Answer: the child.
In Klingon, we know that the "object" comes before the verb. Usually, when
we use the word "object" alone, we are talking about the DIRECT object. So,
lots of times you don't have an indirect object... just a direct one... so
the DO goes right before the verb. But... what do you do when you have an
Indirect Object? Well, the KD says we use -vaD on the IO, and put it at the
beginning of the sentence.
So.. putting the pieces togetehr, we have <puqvaD>, which is the Indirect
Object with -vaD, whcih has to go first... followed by the directo object,
<lutwIj>, follwed by the verb, then the subject.
Does that help any?
>What REAL difference in meaning would occur if I used {-ta'} instead of
>{-pu'} ? I know that it would mean that "I intended to tell the my story to
>the child and I successfully did it" rather than a simple "I told it ..."
>but in real terms, would there be any difference in the translation ?
Other than what you just mentioned... no. Using -ta' only adds the meaning
that you set out to do it, and DID do it.
>I don't need to know any of this for any particular reason, I was just
>pondering it in the bath the other night.
I'm here to answer your questions on any level... I don't care how small or
how big they are... or if you thought of them while sitting in the bath, or
preparing your most recent letter. {{:)
>[ SuStel once told me something like {reH puchpa'Daq paw qechmey nIv} ]
Either that, or in your sleep. :)
>And secondly, I was looking through the example phrases in the back of the
>book and I happened across "Surrender or die!"
>
>Whilst {bIjaghbe'chugh vaj bIHegh} makes perfect sense to me, it doesn't
>mention anything about using {vaj} in a subordinate clause in the body of
>the book.
>
>Theoretically, you could also write the phrase as
>
>{bIHegh bIjaghbe'chugh}
>
>so that {vaj} wouldn't fit properly but the sentence would still make sense.
>Can I assume that {vaj} is a "not necessary but do it if you like" thing or
>does it only apply in "canon" sentences like the one above and most of the
>time you WOULDN'T (shouldn't) use it ?
As far as I know, it is a "not necessary but do it if you like" thing. It
may be required only if the -chugh clause comes first... that we don't know.
It is certainly not a "cannon-only" thing.
The only time *I* wouldn't use it, is when the -chugh clause comes second;
then it makes no sense to. I beleive the use of <vaj> falls under the
"debated topics" list, but I'm not usre on that one.
>Also, would
>
>{bIjagh pagh bIHegh}
>
>be wrong ?
>
>"Either you (will) surrender or you (will) die"
>
>I suppose that it doesn't really get the "if" meaning across, does it ?
It's wrong in the sense that we already have "canon" for how it should be.
What you have is grammatically correct, though. And it may very well be
because of that "if" concept that this wasn't used; that I can't tell you,
but since I have now responded to this, it is open for the list in general
to reply...
--tQ, who would kill for a spell-checker...
---
HoD trI'Qal, tlhIngan wo' Duj lIy So' ra'wI'
Captain T'rkal, Commander IKV Hidden Comet
Klingon speaker and net junkie!
HaghtaHbogh tlhIngan yIvoqQo'! toH... qatlh HaghtaH Qanqor HoD???
monlI'bogh tlhInganbe' yIvoqQo'! SoHvaD monlI' trI'Qal...