tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Sep 10 00:39:11 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC
- From: [email protected] (HoD trI'Qal)
- Subject: Re: KLBC
- Date: Mon, 9 Sep 1996 23:57:01 -0400
At 07:30 PM 9/2/96 -0700, Laurel Beckley wrote:
>
>I've been reading through chapter 6 of TKD, and am trying to see if I'm
>understanding it. I have some sentences using -bogh, and want to know if
>they're right.
I do like to point out examples of nice, simple, grammatical Klingon
sentences. For all of you who would like some more examples of how to do
relative clauses (they usually get translated as "which", and further
describes a noun: "the dog which bit me" for example--the "which bit me" is
a relative clause, further describing the dog), otherwise known as -bogh
clauses, should look at this post for some very nice examples! The only
errors I found were actually not in the relative clauses themselves, but the
rest of the sentence! Very well done! I think you have the hang of it!
majQa'!
>choppu' qettaHbogh Saj.
>The pet which is running bit him.
I really don't want to get into a detailed discussion of -taH right now, but
I would like to point out that using -taH in there implies that the pet is
running now, and was also running when it bit the officer--it implies a
"continuous" running, ceaseless running.
And yes, this is correct. {{:)
>HoHpu' SoptaHbogh loD.
>The man who is eating killed him.
Very nice!
>HoH qettaHbogh loD vIleghpu'.
>I saw the man who is running kill him.
This was the only place you made a real error--but not in your relative clause!
What you really have here is TWO sentences: "The man who is running kills
him" and "I saw that (whole previous sentence)". This is called the
Sentence As Object (SOA) structure, and yes, there are rules for it in
Klingon as well. I have to commend you again: you have the words all in
the right order, you are just lacking one last special word, which is used
in the object position of the second sentence (in this case, "I saw that
(referring to the whole previous sentence)"), and it MEANS "that (referring
to the whole previous sentence)"! If you put this in, your sentence becomes:
HoH qettaHbogh loD 'e' vIleghpu'.
Unfortunatley, there is also a rule that says that in this structure, you
cannot have a type 7 suffix on the second verb, so the -pu' isn't allowed
(see page 66 for this rule). The sentence-as-object construction is more
fully described on pages 65-67 of your Klingon Dictionary. {{:)
>OK, how did I do?
I think my initial comments answered that sufficiently. {{:)
>Laurel
--tQ
---
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...