tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Dec 17 14:42:09 1997

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: KLBC: Short and Easy [James]

James Coupe writes: 
> In article <[email protected]>, Qov

>> } Can I use *vaj* as a conjunction like this? Just like "and"? 
>>{vaj} can be used as a conjunction, but meaning "thus," 
>> "therefore," "as a consequence," not the same "then" as in "the 
>> following time."
>
> The translation of Alan's response suggested otherwise:
>
> wa'DIch yuQvetlhDaq nejwI' wIngeH muD QulmeH vaj wa'DIch mID 
> wIchenmoH "First, we send a probe to that planet in order to 
> research it then we build the first colony"

That was edy's response, not ghunchu'wI''s, and I gave edy almost the 
same coments I gave you on the use of {vaj}.  

>>}I actually wanted to say:
>>}"then sing songs of our victory"
>>}but I can't find sing or song in the vocab lists or the new words
>>}list.
>>
>>They are, although we've known them a lot longer than that. {bom} 
>>is the noun "song" or "chant" and also the verb "sing" or "chant." 
>>{bom mu'} is lyrics,
>
>Not doubting the truth of that but, to me, it seems quite 
>interesting. Being as *mu'* is "word" (I think) lyrics is "word of 
>the song" when it would seem more logical to have been *bom mu'mey*

Plural suffixes are optional in Klingon.  {bom mu'} means equally 
"the word of the song" and "the words of the song."

>>How about: {Hoch nganpu' tIHoH. wIta'ta'DI' yaymaj bommey tIbom.}
>>"Kill all the inhabitants. When we have done it, sing songs of our
>>victory."
>
> So would *wIta'ta'DI'* be an acceptable translation for 
> "Afterwards" at the start of a sentence? 

In many cases, yes.

> vIta'qa'Qo'

I'm sure that if you were asked to do this again you would refuse, 
but this sentence is not itself a refusal.  You are simply stating 
that doing it again is something that you will not do.  Do not be 
confused by the fact that in English the auxiliary verb marking 
future tense is the same as the verb indicating willingness.  

vIta'qa'be' - I won't do it again (or I don't do it agian, or I 
didn't do it again)

> jIquvmoHHa''eghta'

The suffixes here are all scrambled.  Have another look at the 
section on {-Ha'} and then rearrange your suffixes into the correct 
order.

> I saw *-'egh* as the suffix for oneself and wondered whether than
> could be used with *pong* for "I name/call myself X" - like the
> reflexive verb s'appeler in French.
>
> *James* vIpong'egh <with or without a 'redundant' *jIJ*>
>
> I call myself James (at least, until I can think of a good Klingon
> alternative)
>
> I've probably over-looked something really stupid or a Klingon
> Grammarian would have picked that one up before now.

Not stupid.  Just persistent.  TKD tells us that the reflexive 
suffixes require no-object prefixes. What is the object of the verb 
{jIpong'egh}?  You or the name?  If it's you, what is the function in 
the sentence of the word James?  If it's James, why is {'egh} on the 
verb?  

You could say:

{jIpong'eghmeH James jIjatlh} (or {vIlo'} or {vImaS}, etc.)

- Qov

Back to archive top level