tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Apr 24 23:02:58 1997

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

RE: KLBC: Some Sayings

[email protected] on behalf of Jim LeMaster wrote:
> > > In war, there are dirty fighters and losers.
> > > noH HIghwI'pu' je lujwI'pu' pa'.
> > 
> > To say "in war," you cannot just say "war."  You also cannot use {-Daq}
> > here I
> > think, since fighting a war is not a physical location.  
> I misinterpreted the line from TKW and thought the "in" was assumed. 
> However, I do not understand the differnce between TKW's "noH
> ghoblu'DI'" and your "noH ghoblu'taHvIS" for "In war." could you explain
> it. 

{-DI'} says that one thing happens as soon another thing happens.  That other 
thing is usually pretty instantaneous, or its duration is not relevant.  
{-vIS} means that something happens *while* something else is continuously 
happening.

If we used {-DI'} above, we'd have said, "As soon as one fights a war, there 
are dirty fighters and losers."  With {-vIS}, it's "*While* one fights a war . 
. ."

> > You've got the right words for "dirty fighters" and "losers."  Good.
> >  However,
> > whenever you use a noun conjunction ({je}, {joq}, {ghap}), the conjunction
> > must always go at the end of the noun phrase.  So, "dirty fighters and
> > losers"
> > comes out as {HIghwI'pu' lujwI'pu' je}.
> > 
> Sorry about that.  TKD said it was for between nouns, so that was where
> I put it.

No, it says that they *join* nouns, and are placed after the final noun.  Read 
TKD 5.3.

> > When you want to say "there is" or "there are," you <use the> word which
> > does exactly what you're trying to do:
> > {tu'lu'}.  . . .  Just stick it after whatever it is that one
> > finds.
> > 
> > ghoblu'taHvIS HIghwI'pu' lujwI'pu' je tu'lu'.
> Should be "noH ghoblu'taHvIS HIghwI'pu' lujwI'pu' je tu'lu' " shouldn't
> it?

It doesn't matter.  {ghob} means "make war" all by itself, so the addition of 
{noH} is extraneous.  There's nothing wrong with using it, and nothing wrong 
with not using it.

> > > Works for me!
> > > myQap!
> > 
> > Huh?  I suppose that "y" was supposed to be a "u".  
>  Yeah - typo'd due to input at 2330 hrs.
> >However, *{muQap} means
> > "if functions me."  This is pretty nonsensical.
> > 
> AH HA! You got a typo too!

Hey, I make them sometimes.  They're more common in my English than in my 
Klingon.  Considering how quickly I type sometimes, I'm surprised I don't make 
a lot more mistakes.  Still, no need to be vindictive.

> I picked "muQap" <It functions me!> as a close approximation of "This
> thing (plan,decision,course of action) works for me!" which is my
> interpretation of "Works for me!"

You don't understand.  "It functions me" doesn't mean anything.  It's 
jibberish.  It's not an approximation of anything.

> Would   "muQapmeH" work in this situation?

"In order that it functions me" is just as bad.

>  I am trying for two goals:
> (1) correct tlhIngan Hol usage; (2) a short exclamatory statement
> (rather like the one it comes from) ((Clipped Klingon?)).

Well, then, say {maj}.  That's exactly what you mean.

> Or do I need somthing like: Hevam Qap. <That course works.>

Don't forget the Obj-Verb-Subj sentence order.  That would have to be {Qap 
Hevam} "this course succeeds."  However, {He} refers to a physical route.  
What you want is {Qap nabvam}.  Still, you don't *know* the plan is going to 
succeed . . . this is why I think {maj} is best.

> > > A man should know his limitations.
> > > vehmeyDoj Sov loD.
> > [...]
> I don't agree here.  I am trying to express that a warrior must know HIS
> OWN (internal) limits.  Your statement, to me, seems more suited to
> knowledge about external limits.

Aha!  Now we have some context to play with!

laHDaj SovnIS ghot.
laHDaj vuSlu'bogh SovnIS ghot.

>  I could see that as a statement used
> more like this:
> 
> noH ghoblu'taHvIS, ghot vuSbogh Dochmey'e' SovnIS ghaH.
> In war, a person needs to know the things which limit him.

Not bad, though we're still talking about "things."

>    --or--
> ghot vuSbogh Dochmey'e' SovnIS ghaH may'yotlh ghoblu'taHvIS.
> A person should know those things in a battlefield which limit him.

A person does not "make war the battlefield."  Now you can use {-Daq}:

may' yotlhDaq ghoblu'taHvIS

> However, I think I need a word for "limitations" better than either just
> limits or boundaries (you saw it as 'personal space' not 'the limits of
> his abilities').  Still working from here, can vuS and wI' be combined
> into vuSwI' for 'limitation' here?

I wouldn't understand it.  Try not to force words to be translated like that.  
Use them as they are.  Better yet, start recasting your idea.

Hoch SuvwI' vuSlu'.  yaj'eghnIS Hoch.
Every warrior is limited.  Everyone needs to understand himself.

>     ghot SvnIS vuSwI'meyDaj.
>     A person should know his limitations.
> 
> Or should I just go the long way 'round and use:
> 
> ghot SovnIS veHmeymo' laHmeyDaj.
> A person should know the boundaries due to his abilities.

When {-mo'} is on a noun, it should go before the object, or before the verb 
if there is no object.  This is just like most other Type 5 noun suffixed 
nouns.  And remember: {veHmeymo'} is "because of boundaries," not "because of 
his abilities."  I still don't like {veH} for this, though.

> > > (Popeye's philosophy) Iam what I am.
> > > nuq jIratlh jIratlh.  (I remain what I remain.)
> > 
> > Ack!  
> OK. That was a stretch. I really didn't think that nuq could be used
> that way, but was hoping for a suggestion of a substitute.  How about:
> 
>       jIratlh ghotvetlh reH jIratlhbogh.
>       I remain that person which I will always remain.
>  
> How did I do so far?

Again, I don't think you'd survive saying this to a Klingon.  But 
grammatically, remember to check your verb prefixes.  Some of these have 
objects, but you've used the no-object prefix!

I don't know that {ratlh} is a transitive word in Klingon.  It means "remain, 
stay," and has been used that way in canon.  It doesn't mean "remain as."

You're beginning to sound like you want to say

not jIchoH
I never change.

> jIratlh tuq l'maSto'r Y'jImbo puqloD warDIn.
> I remain Yojimbo, son of Warden, of the House LeMaster.

I *know* you cannot use {ratlh} like this!

-- 
SuStel
Beginners' Grammarian
Stardate 97314.8

Back to archive top level