tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Sep 28 11:30:29 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: Introduction Attempt
- From: [email protected] (HoD trI'Qal)
- Subject: Re: KLBC: Introduction Attempt
- Date: Sat, 28 Sep 1996 14:31:19 -0400
At 07:52 AM 9/4/96 -0700, Alan Anderson wrote:
>Mike Rowe {batlhro'} wrote:
>>De'wI'patmey vIpoj 'ej *Hapkido* vIghojmoH
>
>trI'Qal answered:
>>Very nice! There isn't anything wrong here!
>
>But I don't think {*Hapkido* vIghojmoH} says what he wants it to.
>Remember, {ghojmoH} doesn't mean "teach (a subject)". It literally
>says "cause (someone) to learn". The object of {ghojmoH} properly
>ought to be the person who is learning. [This starts to get into the
>problem of how correctly to use {-moH} on a transitive verb, and given
>the strangeness of the single apparent example we have so far, I'd
>rather avoid trying to do it at all just yet.]
Ah, I forgot about that point--thank you for reminding me of it!
>Since there's no simple Klingon verb "teach (a subject)", the idea
>needs to be recast in order to come out with the right meaning.
>Maybe one of the following would work okay:
>
>*Hapkido* ghojlu' 'e' qaSmoH batlhro'.
>*Hapkido* ghojlu'meH vum batlhro'.
Since my primary duty is to teach basic grammar as much as possible, I will
generally accept either side of a debate like this one (or how to use
<pong>) where we don't really know the proper use. I will start
recommending similar re-casts as well, to "avoid" the issue as I see them
for our new students, too, as I like to offer a variety of different ways to
get around a grammar debate.
Thanks again for pointing this out, Alan!
>-- Alan Anderson, professional programmer and amateur Klingonist
--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...