tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Dec 21 07:44:13 1997

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: KLBC: Basic Toasts

On Sat, 20 Dec 1997 19:01:56 -0800 (PST) Eduardo Fonseca 
<[email protected]> wrote:

>        Greetings Qov!
 
Well, I'm standing in for her absence. charghwI' jIH.
... 
> >}What is it like? - 'oH 'ar

That actually means something like "How many it," or maybe, "How 
much it." Putting {'ar} after the pronoun means the pronoun is 
acting as a noun, not a verb, so these two words don't include 
any verbs. There's no sentence here. If you want to say, "What 
is it like," consider avoiding "to be" concepts and say, "yIDel."

> >You are translating words not concepts here, edy.  One of the biggest
> >problems with trying to translate these basic exercises is the very reason
> >they are there in the first place: they introduce the basic idioms of the
> >language, not phrases that can be deduced from simple knowledge of grammar
> >and vocabulary.  

Qove gives very good advice here. Heed it.
 
>         Yesterday I was in a supermarket with my girlfriend and I tried to
> speak a bit of klingon with her. Of course she understood nothing, except 
> when I told her "qamuSHa' ", but she was curious what I was talking about.
> I could use some small sentences as "tugh *supermarket* luSoQmoH ", <Soon
> they will close the supermarket> or the PK: " 'IH jaj, qar'a' " and finally
> "HISuvQo' ". But it was very interesting and a good exercise, but I carry lots
> of the daily expressions. Think, speak the O-V-S and leave idiom concepts
>  is very difficult .
         
It gets easier with practice, though I write so much more than I 
speak, I still find myself restating the same sentence, putting 
more words on the beginning each time.
 
> >}It's my favourite food - Sojvam vIparHa' law' Hoch vIparHa' puS
> >}These clothes are too big for me - jIHvaD tInqu'  'oH Sutmeyvam'e'
> >
> >You're mixing the pronoun as to-be, and the to-be that is part of the
> >translation of the verb {tIn}.  {tIn} means "be big."  {tInqu' Sutvam} "this
> >clothing is very big"
> 
>         The verbs as "adjectives"  .. that's right!!
 
Well, these verbs can be used either as adjectives when they 
follow a noun, or as "be adjective" when preceeding the noun. 
{Doq taj} means "The knife is red." It is a sentence. {taj Doq} 
means "red knife". There is no verb here. It is not a sentence.
 
> >}We are a large family - qorDu' tIn maH'e' 
> >}There are 6 of us in the family - qorDu'Daq jav maH'e'  
> >
> >Why did you put the {-'e'} suffix on {maH}?  I don't see that the emphasis
> >adds anything.  
> 
>             I was trying "We are six in the family". Once again the verb "to be".
 
This is a good place to use one of the idioms we know in 
Klingon. When you want to state a fact that X exists, you say, 
{X tu'lu'}. To say, "There are six people in my house," you'd 
say {juHDaq jav nuv tu'lu'.}

Meanwhile, "in my family" sounds a little idiomatic here. It 
sounds like the location of your family has six. Also, the 
{-'e'} on {maH'e'} means {maH} is being used as a noun and not a 
verb, since {-'e'} is a noun suffix. That makes what you wrote 
mean something like, "At my family's location, six wes."

In other words, you stumbled into a concept that is a bit thorny 
to express in Klingon. I am myself momentarily challenged to 
express it gracefully.

Hmmm.

My reflex is to say {jav nuv ghaj qorDu'wIj.} "My family has six 
people." But that sounds almost like you have slaves...

Oddly, I feel less awkward if the word {tuq} is used. {jav nuv 
ghaj tuqwIj.} Your tribe possesses those who are members of it.
 
> >}or qorDu'Daq maHvo' jav tu'lu' 
> >
> >This sounds more like six of our number went to the family, or something.  I
> >don't like the {-vo'} here at all.
> >I'm not 100% happy with {-Daq} for "in the family."  I probably would say
> >{qorDu'majDaq jav nuv lutu'lu'}, and people would snicker at me for the
> >pedantic and never-used-in-canon {lu-} on {tu'lu'}, if not for the {-Daq}.
> 
>         I don't know if this issue was discussed before, but there are other
> (strange) ways to say the same thing:
> 
> nuv jav ghaj qorDu'wIj - My family has 6 persons

I don't think this is altogether bad. I just see a tribe 
possessing its members more than a family does.

> qorDu'Daq jav maH'e'  - We are 6 in the family

This definitely does not work.

> nuv jav chenmoH qorDu'wIj - My family forms 6 persons

Ahhh. Interesting. I think the subject and object are reversed, 
however. Six people make your family. Your family does not make 
six people. Think back to the literal "cause to form". The six 
people cause the family to form.

> nuv jav ngaS qorDu'wIj - My contains 6 persons.

I feel lukewarm about this one. It likely works well enough, 
though.

> __
> Eduardo Fonseca || Belo Horizonte, Brasil
> Pau Brasil: The brazilian's VGA Planets home page
> http://www.geocities.com/BourbonStreet/2460
> Hovmey DIvan
> 

charghwI', ru' taghwI' pabpo'
Temporary Beginner's Grammarian, December 20-30

Back to archive top level