tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Apr 19 23:26:34 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: KLBC: Re: be'pu'
- From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>
- Subject: RE: KLBC: Re: be'pu'
- Date: Sun, 20 Apr 97 05:47:54 UT
On Tuesday, April 15, 1997 4:14 AM, [email protected] on behalf of Diego
'Mago' De Miguel wrote:
> *Spain*-Daq be'pu''e' jIjatlh... loDpu' je!
> (I was talking about spanish women... and man also!)
"Spanish women" would be {*Spain* be'pu'}, just as "Klingon women" would be
{tlhIngan be'pu'}.
You cannot use {jatlh} to translate "talk about." So far, the only object
we're certain {jatlh} can take is the name of a language. You could say
{*Spain* be'pu''e' vIDel} "I was describing Spanish women."
In English, you can get away with that trick of pausing before naming the
second object, because the objects come last. In Klingon, it doesn't work in
complete sentences that way. You will either have to be satisfied with an
incomplete sentence, or you must repeat the sentence:
*Spain* be'pu' vIDel . . . *Spain* loDpu' vIDel je!
The good side of this is that while English cannot do this trick with the
*subject*, Klingon can!
> naDev tlhIngan vIghoj Hol 'e' luyajbe' ghotpu'
> (Here people doesn't understand me learning Klingon)
I think you misordered {vIghoj} and {Hol}. However, I don't think this means
quite what you intended. It sounds like "Here people don't understand that I
speak Klingon." I'm sure they know you're speaking Klingon, but they don't
understand *why*.
But let's not make one of those iffy question-as-object sentences (*shudder*).
How about this?
tlhIngan Hol vIghojtaHmo', naDev muyajbe' ghotpu'.
Because I am learning Klingon, people here don't understand me.
If you're feeling really fancy, you could eliminate the vague {ghotpu'} and
use the Type 5 verb suffix {-lu'}:
tlhIngan Hol vIghojtaHmo', naDev vIyajbe'lu'.
Because I'm learning Klingon, I am not understood.
> lo'Ha' 'oH 'e' luQub!
> (They think it's useless!)
Well, the best word for "useless" is {lI'be'}. {lo'Ha'} means "misuse" or
"unuse."
lI'be' 'oH 'e' luQub!
or just
lI'be' 'e' luQub!
And if you switch to indefinite subject again, you can't just add {-lu'},
because you're also using {'e'} (see TKD 6.2.5).
lI'be' net Qub!
It's thought to be useless!
> Qubbejghach DaghajmoH Holvam vIja'
> (I tell them that this languaje helps you to have clear and direct
> thoughts)
Ack! Yick! Why use {-ghach}, a messy and weird suffix, when you've got
perfectly good *verbs* to use?
chaH vIja' Holvammo' Qublu'chu'
I tell them that this language causes one to think clearly.
{-bej} means that you are certain that the action you're describing took
place. {Qubbejghach} sounds like some silly word, {Qubghachna'} (don't say
this to a Klingon unless you want to get laughed out of the Empire).
> 'ach luyajbe' chaH (luyajbe'qu' be'pu :) !)
> (But they don't understand it... specially women :) !)
What's "it" in this sentence? Until you specify that, you're hardly thinking
clearly and directly! :) I'd probably go with {'ach muyajbe' chaH. muyajbe'
je be'pu''e'}.
I've also used {-'e'} instead of {-qu'} above. I think it more accurately
emphasizes what you mean.
> jIHagh neH...
> (I'm just kidding...)
Do you REALLY think a Klingon would say this? . . . :)
> luyajbe' be'pu' loDpu' je!
> (Really not men neither women understand it!)
Again, I'd make that {muyajbe'}. Unless, that is, you come up with some good
noun which could stand in for "it." I can think of a couple, but they're not
really any better than mine.
> 'ach be'pu' vImuS!
> (But I don't hate women!)
Er . . . then you need the {-be'} suffix . . .
'ach be'pu' vImuSbe'.
> mu'oy'pu'bogh be'pu' vImuS neH.
> (I only hate women who had hurt me)
majQa'! pup mu'tlheghvam! 'ej Qatlh!
> tIq 'oy' qab law' Hoch qab puS!
> (Heart ache is the worst pain of all!)
majQa'!
SuStel
Beginners' Grammarian
Stardate 97301.1