tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Jul 27 11:50:59 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: cheghta' muHwI' !
- From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: KLBC: cheghta' muHwI' !
- Date: Sun, 27 Jul 97 04:15:44 UT
On Stardate 97567.0, muHwI' wrote:
> heh heh heh... cheghta' muHwI' !
maj.
> qaStaHvIS naDev jIH tu'lu'be' tlhIngan Hol vIbuSchu'pu'.
I don't see why you have used {qaStaHvIS} "while it occurs." What you tried
to say was {jIDachtaHvIS} "while I was absent."
Also, adding {-pu'} on {vIbuSchu'} indicates that while you were gone, you had
already thought about this. Actually, you were thinking on it WHILE you were
gone, so either no aspect suffix, or {-taH}, would be more appropriate.
jIDachtaHvIS tlhIngan Hol vIbuSchu'taH
> DaH loQ qayu'.
> * * * * * * * * *
> heh heh heh... *muHwI'* is back!
> While I was not here I was thinking about Klingon a lot.
> Now I have some questions.
>
> ---> Curses
> While I was reading my TKD I tried to analyze {Qu'vatlh} and tried to
> find something like a "translation". {Qu'} means quest or mission.
> {vatlh} means a hundred. So the origin of the word, centuries ago,
> could have been something about "hundred missions". I would be
> really angry about so much work.
Cute!
No, we cannot analyze curses this way. People try to, but we just don't know
where the words come from. I mean, what has a life-support system, {yIntagh},
got to do with insulting someone?
Here's what we DO know: {Qu'vatlh} is used in "moments of extreme anger."
> In the curse {ghuy'cha'} one can find {cha'}. In many of the languages
> that I speak, I have discovered curses which include a word meaning
> "twice" or "double".
*shrug* But we have no etymology for the Klingon curse. There's no way to
tell.
{ghuy'cha'} is used as a stronger version of "Darn it!"
> * * * * * * * * *
> ---> mu'qaDmey
> tlhIngan mu'ghomwIj vIlaDtaHvIS *Qu'vatlh* vIpoj vInID
Don't forget the {'e'} required for Sentences As Object.
*Qu'vatlh* vIpoj 'e' vInID
> 'ej vImugh vInID.
vImugh 'e' vInID
> *Qu'* QIjlu': Qu'.
That's hardly informative! :)
> *vatlh* QIjlu': wa', pagh, pagh. chaq mu' mung 'oH *vatlh
> Qu'*'e'.
> jIvumnISchugh jIQeHbej.
"If I need to work I will certainly be angry." ??
> *ghuy'cha'*-mu'qaDDaq *cha'* tu'lu'. Holmey vISov... (?)
Just keep on going.
Holmey law' vIHaDpu'. HochHomDaq QIch *cha'* tu'lu'. . . .
> ---> Gagh
> In TKW on page 141, they talk about Gagh, and on the same page
> they show a picture of some food which I don't know but it surely
> is NOT Gagh. So what is it? I couldn't find anything similar on KCD.
Would you believe it's chocolate-covered gagh?
Gagh never seems to look the same. Don't concern yourself too much about
that.
> * * * * * * * * *
> ---> qagh
> tlhIngan tIgh paqDaq qagh jatlhlu'
{jatlh} is "speak," not "speak about." {qagh jatlhlu'} means "Gagh is
spoken." How about
qagh Dellu'
Gagh is described.
> 'ej *picture* cha' 'ach *picture*Daq qagh
> cha'be'.
Since there is no one in particular who is displaying the gagh, you need the
indefinite subject, indicated by {-lu'}.
Also, this would be an excellent opportunity to use the Type 3 noun suffix
{-na'}.
'ej *picture* cha'lu' 'ach *picture*Daq qaghna' chu'be'lu'.
And there's a picture, but it isn't really gagh being shown. (A very loose
translation.)
> Sojvetlh vISovbe'bej. Dochvam nuq? *KCD*Daq vItu'laHbe' je.
chaq qagh'e' Dechbogh yuch cha'lu'
> ---> {tu'lu'be'} or {tu'be'lu'}
> {QuvlIjDaq yIH tu'be'lu'jaj} is what they say on PK. {-be'} is a rover
> suffix,
> so why is it after {tu'} and not at the end, like {tu'lu'be'} ?
> {tu'} = "to find" || {tu'} = "to find"
> {tu'lu'} = "one finds it" || {tu'be'} = "he/she finds it not"
> {tu'lu'be'} = "one finds it not" || {tu'be'lu'} = "one finds it not"
> So what is the difference?
{tu'lu'} is a construction which, having such a rountine usage as "there
is/there are," has become something of a fossilized form. Think of {tu'lu'}
as a separate word.
Toasts follow special grammatical rules, and some of them are pretty old
(especially since we now know that tribbles were eradicated a long time ago).
In {QuvlIjDaq yIH tu'be'lu'jaj}, it's conceivable that {tu'be'lu'} got frozen
in that form.
There's a proverb, {SuvwI' qan tu'lu'be'} "There are no old warriors." This
shows that we can also put the {-be'} afterwards.
Essentially, you can fiddle with {tu'lu'} all you like. They're all
acceptable. There may be certain subtle rules governing its use that we don't
know, but if {tu'lu'} really IS the equivalent of English "whom" (in that no
one seems to know how to use it properly, and so don't use it), then I doubt
it really matters.
> * * * * * * * * *
> ---> *tu'lu'be'* *tu'be'lu'* ghap
> *PK*Daq *QuvlIjDaq yIH tu'be'lu'jaj* jatlh.
Unless you mean "he says" (but you haven't specified your subject at all, so I
guess you don't mean this), you need the indefinite subject again.
*PK*Daq <QuvlIjDaq yIH tu'be'lu'jaj> jatlhlu'
> lengwI' *-be'*.
This needs a "to be" construction.
lengwI' 'oH <-be'>'e'.
> qatlh botlhDaq tu'lu' 'ej qatlh DopDaq tu'lu'be' ?
Hoo hoo! That's cute!
> {tu'} = "to find" || {tu'} = "to find"
> {tu'lu'} = "one finds it" || {tu'be'} = "he/she finds it not"
> {tu'lu'be'} = "one finds it not" || {tu'be'lu'} = "one finds it not"
> pIm nuq?
>
> ---> Klingon
> My last question is just how is my klingon?
> * * * * * * * * *
> ---> tlhIngan Hol
> chay' 'oH tlhIngan HolwIj'e' ?
Not bad, except for this sentence!
In English, "How is my Klingon" is asking "Is it good or bad?" In Klingon,
using {chay'} here sounds like you're asking how your Klingon language could
possibly be in existence. {tlhIngan HolwIj 'oH.} {chay'?}
Use a verb to ask this question.
tlhIngan Hol vIjatlhchu'pu''a'?
Have I spoken Klingon perfectly?
QaQ'a' tlhIngan Hol laHwIj?
Is my Klingon language ability good?
--
SuStel
Beginners' Grammarian
Stardate 97569.3