tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Sep 28 08:59:09 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: tlhIngan Hol chu' ghojwI'. jIH ghaj pung.
- From: [email protected] (HoD trI'Qal)
- Subject: Re: tlhIngan Hol chu' ghojwI'. jIH ghaj pung.
- Date: Sat, 28 Sep 1996 11:59:58 -0400
At 11:37 AM 9/3/96 -0700, Donald E. Vick wrote:
> Well, this one wasn't flagged KLBC, and nobody has responded yet, so I'll
>it a go.
I said in my previous post that I wasn't going to rag on anyone for
answering before I did, since I am responding so late.
Unfortunatley, you made an incorrect assumption here: if the person is new
to the list, YOU DON'T RESPOND FIRST. They are STILL a beginner, and the
role of Beginner's Grammarian has NEVER been limited to just the postiong of
answering KLBC-flagged posts; that was just a convention to make it easier
for beginners to get a hold of the BG.
What makes it worse, is that you have given at least one grammitcally
incorrect correction (or else I may not have bothered replying)--now I have
to correct you, too, and hope that either someone pointed out YOUR errors
long ago, or that the person to whome you replied can un-learn what you have
"taught" them.
It is for PRECISELY this reason that the BG is supposed to reply to
beginners' posts first, EVEN IF THEY DO NOT HAVE KLBC IN THE HEADER.
In short, if it is obviously a new person posting, you get to wait until the
BG replies.
>> M: What's your problem?
>> M: nuq qay'lIj?
> <qay'lIj> is gibberish. You have a noun suffix on a verb. Perhaps <nuq
>qay'wI'lIj> or even simpler, <Duqay' nuq>, "What troubles you?" Recasting,
>see?
Well, recasting is a very good idea... except that at least one your
suggestions is grammatically incorrect. {{:)
Your first suggestion is "your thing which is a problem is what"? At first
glance, I almost thought this was incorrect, but technically, it is not. I
don't feel comfortable with it for some reason I can't name--perhaps just
ebcause you are using a nominalized verb in the "to be" construction.
Your second sentence is NOT "What troubles you". The verb <qay'> is NOT "to
trouble"/bother"... that is <nuQ>! <qay'> means "to BE a problem". Your
sentence is litterally "what is a problem you?". Sound like the English
version isn't correct? Well, it isn't... and neither is the Klingon. {{:)
***DEBATE ALERT***
The Klingon Dictionary makes NO mention of transitivity of verbs, yet we
have -moH, which is a suffix which can be used to convert a non-transitive
verb to a transitive one. Oh, what's transitivity? The ability to take an
object... for example, you can talk about "killing someone", but you can't
talk about "sleeping someone" (well, mebby in slang usage...). "to kill" is
a transitive verb: it can have an object. "to sleep" is INtransitive; it
does NOT take an object. As a general rule, any of the verbs defined in
your KD which have "to be <blah>" in the English description are NOT
transitive. If you have a verb prefix that has any sort of object (i.e., it
si not jI-, bI-, ma-, Su-, or null), it is most likely used incorrectly.
The ONLY time these verbs can take an object,is if you use -moH "to cause"
on them. Your second suggestion would have been grammatically correct if
you had said:
Duqay'moH nuq?
Please note that this is STILL not compatible with the original meaning, as
it best translates to "what causes you to be a problem?"
>> C: I'm a cat and you're a mouse. We're mortal enemies.
>> C: "Cat" jIH. "Mouse" SoH. majaghqu'.
> First two sentences are good, for future reference, the usual way to flag
>an English word in a Klingon sentence is with *. i.e. <*cat* jIH>. The last is
>more gibberish, you have a verb prefix, then a noun, then a noun suffix. This
>sentence is going to need recasting. Perhaps, <jaghlI jIH 'ej jaghwI SoH>.
And now you are the one presenting jibberish. {{:)
I know of no sufix ?-wI? nor ?-lI?. I DO know of -wI' and -lI', however.
Those silly little 's may seem small and unimportant, but they are VERY
important to a Klingon! They are a consonant, as true and valid as, say,
the letter "t". How well do you suppse you would be undersood, if you jus
randomly sared dropping all occurances of ha leer? My, wha new and srange
words you would speak! Perhaps you will remember o use ha consonan--jus
because it doesn' occur in English ex, does no mean ha i is no imporant...
Since I suspect you didn't understand that last very well, I will re-write
the last sentence here, WITH my letter "t"s: Perhaps you will remember to
use that consonant--just because it doesn't occrus in English text, does not
mean that it is not important.
Assuming you meant to use -lI' and -wI', what you had was okay, but I would
wonder why you would not go for the much simpler <jaghpu' maH> "we are enemies"?
>> M: I beg your pardon? I am a technically adept and binary fluent computer
>> expert.
>> M: QI'yah. jIpo' chamwI'.
> Why is the mouse swearing at the cat? He isn't mad, just confused. How
>about <nuqjatlh> instead? And watch your capitalization. The second sentence
>is pretty wierd. Unless you're trying for apposition, that <chamwI'> is just
>kinda floating free with nothing to do. You are apparently thinking in
>English. Don't. Try, <po'bogh chamwI' jIH>. For the rest of the sentence,
>how about making it <pogh De'wI' Hol po'chu'bogh chamwI' jIH>?
I'm really biting my tongue to avoid making sarcastic comments about "why
are you responding, if you understand so little of what this person was
saying?" because I ratehr clearly (I think) saw what they were trying to do
with both using <jagh> as a verb inthe previous example, and with QI'yaH
here. As for the "unintelligible" response, yours is NO BETTER! I see no
reference to a glove (<pogh>) ANYWHERE in the original, and you have the
exact same trouble with transitive verbs as before (at least you are
consistent)!
And you are a fine one to talk about capitalization, after forgetting you 's!
>> M: You are merely a computer user, dependent on guys like me to
>> perform even the simplest of functions.
>> M: bIQIp De'pIn. De'Pin puj SoH. chowuvmeH QapHom.
> Your first sentence is the same as the last one in the previous line. You
>need something like, <QIpbogh De'pIn SoH>. And <De'pIn>? "Data boss"? This
>has already been addressed of course. <De'wI' lo'wI' QIpwI' SoH>.
At least this is grammatical... but why are you nominalizing a the verb
<QIp>, when you can use it as an adjective?
De'wI' lo'wI' QIp SoH
'd even through a <neH> "only" in there for emphasis...
De'wI' lo'wI' QIp neH SoH
>The last
>sentence is a mix-up. <QapHom> is a noun suffix on a verb. <chowuvmeH> means
>"in order that you depend on me". Perhaps, <QapmeH chowuv>. A better way
>might be, <napbejwI' Data'meH chowuv>.
What's really ironic, is that this, the most complicated thing you attempted
to say, was actaully the first one I have seen which is grammatically
correct. I might have thrown the -bej on <wuv> or even -ba' or -chu' to dig
the "knife" deeper into the poor user... {{:)
Very nice job here, and a good suggestion (asuming this is close to what the
original poster was trying to convey).
>> C: Like I said, we're mortal enemies.
>> C: HIja'. majaghpu'.
> <HIja'> works here, but i would go for <'e' qaja'>. As for <majaghpu'>,
>see above.
I didn't suggest something like that because most beginners have a difficult
time with sentence-as-objects--otherwise, I would have suggested <net Sov>,
but taking the time to explain it would have been more trouble than it was
worth, at this point in this student's studies. They are NEW! Don't throw
complicated structure at them until THEY try to use them!
>Qapla'
>taDI'oS vIq, law'wI'pu'vaD Holtej jIH
This whole post probably came across as being very nasty; I realize that you
were trying to be helpful, but because your own post was so error-ridden,
and used several complicated constructs without explaination, it simply made
MORE work for me. I suspect that several other people probably "flamed" you
long before this, so I am going to go onthe assumption that you have learned
your lessong, and won't do it again.
I appreciate the sentiment behind this post, but unfortunatley, you don't
have the skill yet to back it up--you provided a CLASSIC example of why
beginners should NOT respond to other beginner's posts!
--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...