tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Apr 21 16:45:24 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: KLBC: ST6
- From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>
- Subject: RE: KLBC: ST6
- Date: Mon, 21 Apr 97 23:11:28 UT
[email protected] on behalf of Diego 'Mago' De Miguel wrote:
> Hi everyone... still trying, never give up :)!
maj. not yIjegh!
> wa'Hu' *Star Trek VI: Hatlh wItu'be'bogh* vIleghqa'.
> (Yesterday I saw "Star Trek VI: The undiscovered country" one more
> time).
That's "country which we do not discover." I think a more appropriate phrase
would be {Hatlh tu'be'lu'pu'bogh} "country which one has not discovered," or
"country which has not been discovered."
> Hoch tlhIngan Hol mu'tlheghmey vIyajlaHbe'chu'pu'.
> (I couldn't understand clearly all the spoken Klingon.)
This is a bit of a hazy point. {vIyajlaHbe'chu'pu'} says "I had perfectly not
been able to understand it." That would mean your lack of understanding was
absolute. I don't think the {-chu'} suffix is going to apply to the previous
suffix, but to the entire verb.
vIyajchu'be'
I did not completely understand it.
I removed the aspect suffix {-pu'} because you don't really need to see it.
The time context so far is your viewing of Star Trek VI. It is at that time
that you did not completely understand it. The lack of understanding had not
already happened.
Also, I think there's a bit of ambiguity in exactly what you did not
understand. Did you not understand *all* of the sentences? Or do you mean
that you understood *not all* of them? (Not appropriate English I suppose,
but I think it makes the point.) I'm not sure of how to correct this
ambiguity, perhaps someone else has thoughts here?
> qabqu' tlhIngan Hol jatlhwIj !
> (My spoken Klingon is very bad!)
{jatlh} is a verb, and is not a noun. You may not use it as one. You can say
this lots of ways, though. Remember, focus on verbs!
tlhIngan Hol vIjatlhtaHvIS, jIpo'Ha'.
I am unskilled while speaking Klingon.
> DaH *Spain*-Daq *Star Trek* tamey nungevtaH.
> (Now they're selling the Star Trek video collecion here in Spain.)
Who exactly are "they"? It's English's equivalent of "nobody in particular,
whoever handles that sort of thing." That's the indefinite subject, and
Klingon's got a suffix for it:
DaH *Spain*-Daq *Star Trek* tamey lungevlu'taH.
Now Star Trek "records" are being sold in Spain.
Personally, I don't like {ta} for television episode. I much prefer {lut}.
> cha' Hoghmey latlh ta nungevtaH.
> (Every two weeks they sell another video.)
Lots of highly debatable topics in this one. If you specify a time reference,
it's a particular time, not an interval. I might get around this particular
case by saying
reH qaSpu'DI' cha' Hoghmey latlh ngevlu'.
Always as soon as two weeks have occurred, another is sold.
The tough part here is the {latlh}. So far, we have absolutely no evidence
that it can modify a noun the way {Hoch} does. It wouldn't surprise me at
all, but I won't use it until Okrand does. Besides, I can always say the same
idea in a different way. Take the above sentence, for instance. Context
tells us that we're talking about {tamey} (or {lutmey}) being sold. It
becomes obvious that {latlh} is referring to another story.
> Hoch tamey vIje'taH 'ach *Star Trek IV: juHDaq leng* vIje'be'. *ST6*
> vIparbej !
> (I'm buying every record except "Star Trek IV: The voyage home". I
> certainly dislike it!)
{juHDaq leng} I can accept this, but for reasons other than why you wrote it.
We have no evidence that nouns with Type 5 noun suffixes can modify other
nouns. They only modify sentences. They are syntactic markers. You saw
{leng} as a noun and thought "voyage to home." This came out as {juHDaq
leng}. This reasoning is faulty, because of what I described above, but
you're saved by a fortunate fact: {juHDaq leng} also means "They travel home,"
which is also a good title!
Actually, I might just write is as {juH leng}, though this might be a little
too brief.
> *Star Trek* ta chu' joS vIQoypu'.
> (I've heard rumors about a new Star Trek movie).
Now I'm *sure* that {ta} just isn't the word we want. Go for {lut}.
But the sentence is good.
> *Star Trek: loDnI'pu' noH* 'oH pongDaj'e'.
> (Its title is "Star Trek: Civil War".)
That's a cool way to talk of civil war, though it's very metaphorical. It
probably wouldn't stand up without lots of background.
By the way, if anyone actually knows about future Star Trek movies or
episodes, I will stop reading the post, beginner or no! I refuse to listen to
anything which is involved, not even the "Oh, just let me tell you about this"
stuff, because it will ruin it for me. For example, for Star Trek:
Generations, a rather viscious person tricked me into reading just a few
words. From these words, I knew just about everything that was going to
happen in the movie: Kirk dies, Enterprise destroyed, two captains, Data gets
emotions. There might have been something else, but that was enough. I saw
everything coming. So please don't spoil anything for me!
> Hut *ST* ta 'oH.
> (It's the ninth ST movie.)
When ordering things, you can use the number-element, {-DIch}. See TKD p.54.
Hov leng lut HutDIch 'oH.
> vIleghqangtaHqu' !
> (I'm really looking forward to see it!)
I suppose that works.
> be'pu' jabbI'IDmey vIjangqang... 'ach law'qu' chaH !
> (I'm willing to answer the "be'pu'" emails... but there are too much!)
maj.
> QIt vImughtaH :)
> (I'm slow translating :) )
Without a specific object, you have to choose the no-object, or general object
prefix, {jI-}. {QIt jImughtaH}.
> 'ej vIjangpa' Hoch jabbI'IDmey vIlaD vIneH.
> (and I want to read them all before I answer.)
Again, depending on what you meant, you might consider changing {vIjangpa'} to
{jIjangpa'}, though it's not wrong, if you mean "before I answer *them*."
--
SuStel
Beginners' Grammarian
Stardate 97305.9