tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Dec 18 14:59:27 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: Short and Easy [James]
In article <[email protected]>, Robyn Stewart
<[email protected]> writes
>> 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)
>
Forgive me, I am stupid, but I fail to see the difference.
If I wre to reword that it would be:
I will not do that again in the future. Which seems to be how you've
translated it.
TKD pages 46 and 47 seem to indicate that *-Qo'* denotes refusal and
that *-be'* denotes negative. So that -Qo' would be used in "I won't do
it", "I wouldn't do it" or "I will not do it" and that -be' would be
used in "I don't do it" or "I didn't do it" .
Could you try and explain the difference in words of 1 syllable (or less
if possible };) ?
>> 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.
>
Ah, as someone else (Alan) points out, I saw *quvmoH* as 1 verb in TKD
and didn't realise that I had to shove *-moH* out of the way.
So:
jIquvHa''eghmoHta'
(in the order R 1 4 7, I think now)
I caused myself to be dishonored (I think)
>> 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.
Mental note to self: Learn to read.
>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.)
I say (speak) James for (because/since) I call myself?
Doesn't exactly convey the meaning, does it?
I think I'll stick to the one in the FAQ:
tlhIbwI' 'oH pongwIj'e'
Thinking that *tlhIbwi'* is a good enough description of myself to
constitute the basis of a name. (One who is incompetent, I believe).
--
tlhIbwI' (formerly James Coupe)