tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Jan 24 15:06:35 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: (KLBC) *Iowa*vo' jabbI'ID
- From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>
- Subject: RE: (KLBC) *Iowa*vo' jabbI'ID
- Date: Fri, 24 Jan 97 22:56:00 UT
January 24, 1997 11:51 AM EST, jatlh HomDoq:
> qaStaHvIS Soch tera' jar, yoS *Iowa*Daq jISaHtaH.
>
> I have been in Iowa for seven months now.
> lit.: while seven earth-months occurred, I was continuously present
> in the district Iowa.
maj.
> (I'm using {yoS} to indicate what type of object "Iowa" denotes,
> and I didn't want to use {yIn}, because a) I don't remember what
> the conclusion of the discussion about using {yIn} for "live at"
> was and b) the INS might object to me using something that sounds
> like "permanent residency" :)
INS?
I don't have a problem with using {yIn}, personally. It might be waxing a
little poetic, or technical, but if you have been residing in a specific
place, you *have* been alive there . . .
> pImqu' juHyoSwIj.
>
> It's very different from home.
> lit.: My home-district is very different.
maj.
> vaj jIlISnIStaH.
>
> Therefore, I have to adapt.
> lit.: Thus I need to adjust.
>
> (I'm still in the process of adjusting.)
maj.
> qaStaHvIS rInpu'bogh DISmey, tujqu' DISpoH tuj, 'ach motlh tujqu'be'.
>
> Although the last couple of summers were very hot, they usually aren't.
> lit.: during the years that are finished, the hot time of the year
> was very hot, but usually it isn't.
>
> (I don't know about {motlh} as an adverbial; I've added it to the list
> in the addendum, but didn't write down the source :( ; there should be
> a more concise way to express the idea of this sentence)
Yes, {motlh} is an adverbial (SkyBox SP3).
Why more concise? It's about as concise as your English original, right?
> *Iowa*Daq QaDHa'qu' je.
>
> In Iowa they're also very humid.
> lit.: In Iowa, they are very undry as well.
maj. Referring to the summers, right?
> *Iowa*Daq DISpoH bIr bIr law', juHDaq DISpoH bIr bIr puS.
>
> The winters at home are less cold than the ones in Iowa.
> lit.: The cold time of the year in Iowa is colder than the cold time
> of the year at home.
>
> (I'm not sure if this is grammatical, would I have to say s.th. like
> {*Iowa*Daq qaSbogh DISpoH} ? see also the subject line, is it ok?)
I don't think that a noun with {-Daq} can modify another noun like this, no.
But they don't need to here.
*Iowa* DISpoH bIr bIr law', juHwIj DISpoH bIr bIr puS.
That's rather fun to say!
No, I don't like the subject line. If you want a sentence, you can say:
*Iowa*vo' jabbI'ID vIlab.
> HIvtaH SuS bIrqu'!
>
> A very cold wind keeps attacking!
> lit.: A very cold wind attacks continuously!
>
> (I can live with the lit., if the "again and again" meaning cannot
> be expressed - but I would prefer to see how it might be done :)
I'm not sure what you think is wrong. This sentence looks good to me.
> juHDaq ngem law' law' *Iowa*Daq ngem law' puS.
>
> Iowa has less forests than home.
> lit.: there are more forests at home than there are forests in Iowa.
Again, use a possessive:
juH ngem law' law' *Iowa* ngeM law' puS.
> (sim. to above maybe {juHDaq ngem tu'lu'bogh}?)
Not needed. If you're talking about it, it probably exists.
> *Switzerland*Daq HuD ngech joq tu'lu'be' net Sov.
>
> We all know, that Switzerland is flat.
> lit. One knows that there are no mountains or valleys in Switzerland.
>
> (See "Asterix in Switzerland" :)
I've only read one Asterix story. Sorry.
> *Iowa*Daq rap.
>
> It's the same with Iowa.
> lit.: In Iowa it is the same.
>
> (I could have said {rap *Iowa*}, but I wanted to keep it in the same
> position as the thing I'm comparing it to, which was Switzerland and
> appeared as *...*Daq)
What is the same? Your subject is too vague.
*Iowa*Daq rap ghu'vam.
Then again, this may be because I'm reading your statements one sentence at a
time.
> 'ach 'IH *Iowa*.
>
> Nevertheless, Iowa is a nice place. :-)
> lit.: But Iowa is beautiful.
maj.
--
SuStel
Beginners' Grammarian
Stardate 97067.6