tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Mar 02 22:15:44 1997

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

RE: "nuqneH" Sajatlh

jatlh qoror:

> 	/KLI/Daq jIchu'.  qoror 'oH pongwIj'e'.

jatlh Humanpu': "Welcome!"

I'm SuStel, the list's Beginners' Grammarian.  My job is to help out beginners 
with the grammar and vocabulary, as well as to monitor the beginner-level 
discussions.  Although you seem more advanced, if you'd like to have an easier 
conversation, just put "KLBC" at the beginning of the subject line.  It's also 
there to keep people from responding with a flurry of good or bad advice 
before I get a chance to look at it.

> naDev jabbI'IDwIj wa'DIch 'oH
> Dochvam'e'.  tlhIngan Hol vIlo' vIneH Dochvam vIlo'taHvIS, 'a Hol vIja',

What exactly do you mean by {Hol vIja'}?  "I tell language"?  Also, try not to 
rely so much on the word {Doch}.  For one thing, it may refer to an "object" 
rather than an abstract concept or a system.  It's also vague, and Klingons 
like to be direct and specific.  "Though a Klingon may sometimes be 
innaccurate, he is never approximate."

> vaj rut
> tera'ngan Hol vIlo'nIS.  jIQoS.

qay'be'.  rut DIvI' Hol vIlo'nIS je jIH.  pab wIqeltaHvIS rut DIvI' Hol 
wIlo'nIS.

> 	---
> 	Before I found out about the mailing list, I thought of many things, so
> I'll list them.
> 	---
> 	wa') pongwIj vISuqpu' De'Daq vay' vInejnISpu'DI'.  poHwIj vuSbe'lu, vaj
> jIlengpu'.  qaSpu'DI' Dochvam /Koror/ vItu', 'ej muqip vay'.  pup.

Watch your spelling!  Sometimes it can make all the difference!  And you've 
used {Doch} again!

I'm a little confused about the first part.  "I had obtained my name as soon 
as I had sought something in information."  What did you mean to say here?  I 
think you're talking about "traveling" on the Internet, but I can't be 
certain.  Sometimes you'll have to either use the actual name in quotes, or 
come up with a clear description.

pong DawIvpu'mo' 'ej ngeDmo' Qu', jIQuch.  pIj vIng taghwI': <chay' pong 
vIwIv?>

> 	cha') I think if you put "taHHa'" on the end of a verb, it gives the
> notion of "once and only once."  This doesn't violate Klingon grammar.  TKD,
> 4.3:  "Rovers... can come just about anywhere except following a Type 9 
suffix."
> "taH" is Type 7, Aspect.  You could also use the same reasoning to say that
> "pu'Ha'" means future tense, but I hesitate to go that far.

No, you can't do this, because of TKD p.48: "It is interesting that {-Ha'} 
always occurs right after the verb.  It is not known why Klingon grammarians 
insist on calling it a rover.  It was felt best not to argue with Klingon 
tradition, so {-Ha'} is here classified as a rover."

As for using {-be'} to indicate this, that's also a no-no.  First of all, Type 
7 verb suffixes indicate *aspect*, not tense.  See the FAQ
http://www.thomtech.com/~dspeers/klingon/faq.htm#3.1

{-taHbe'} and {-lI'be'} might be interpreted as "discontinuously," while 
{-pu'be'} and {-ta'be'} would be "had not completed."

> 	loS)  /Dr. Lawrence Schoen/vaD jabbi'IDvam'e':  yabQel ghaH vavwI''e'.
> motlhchu' Doch DabIDnajpu' jatlh.

What happened to {wej}?  {{:-)

There's quite a bit wrong with the last sentence.  I'm not quite sure what 
you're trying to say, but it looks like you've tried to combine a noun and a 
verb to get *{bIDnaj}.  You can't do this.  The only type of words you can 
compound are nouns.

Also, there are two main verbs in the sentence.  I think you intended one of 
them to have {-bogh} on it.  Is this correct?  I can't tell exactly what you 
were trying to say, so I can't help with it yet.

> 	vagh) To Captain Krankor:  I'd like to produce some backing from a real
> language for your '"-vo'" trick'.  I study German, although right now it's
> pretty elementary.  In German, "some of them" is "ein paar von ihnen," which
> literally means "some from them."  "von" means "from, "paar" means "some," 
and
> "ihnen" is the form of the word "they" that goes with "von."  ("ein" is the
> indefinite article, but forget about that because German uses it ina 
slightly
> different way than we do.)

I don't think Krankor is currently subscribed to the list.  But perhaps 
someone will forward him this question?

> 	jav) If people can loosen their grip on reality and delve into the
> history of Kronos, I have a word origin speculation.  "taHqeq" is anepithet 
for
> a person.  "taH" means "continue, endure, go on," and "qeq" means "military
> drill."  Originally, "taHqeq" would mean "a continuing drill,"

Actually, {taH qeq} would mean "the drill goes on."  "A continuing drill would 
be {taHbogh qeq}.  You cannot combined verbs and nouns.

> but it would have
> (sorry, might have), evolved into "an officer who keeps on drilling his
> soldiers," and later "a person who keeps on performing the same tired 
routine
> over and over."  For Klingons, who crave action, this would be a terrible
> insult, and, later, an epithet.

No, I don't buy it.  Klingons prize obedience, and telling your commander that 
you think his drills are boring is going to get you killed fast.

Also, why would this have turned into such a classic insult?  It doesn't 
really seem that bad this way.  No, I think it's got a totally different 
origin.

> 	Soch) Those of you who've translated the "stuffed to'baj leg" recipe in
> jatmey cha' know it's thoroughly disgusting for humans.  But I've worked it 
into
> a recipe.  It's obviously way too late for this summer, but if you think it
> sounds good you could work it in for the qep'a' vaghDIch.  Here it is.
> 	
> 	Ingredients:  	2 lbs lamb		1/4 lb mushrooms		2
> carrots
> 			2 bell peppers	1 tomato		soy sauce
> chicken broth
> 
> 	Chop up lamb semi-finely -- about same size as index finger past last
> joint.  (Pardon the graphic description, but it was the first accurate one I
> thought of.)  Chop up vegetables to same size.  Mix both together.  Lash 
lightly
> with soy sauce.  Put enough broth in so as not to dry out.  Bake at 350 
degrees
> until tender.  petIv.

motlh jIvutbe'.

> 	---
> 	wej vInIdpu, Soj'e' vIparbogh 'ej luparHa'bogh latlhpu' 'oH 'e' vIQubmo'.

Wow, that's quite good for such a complex sentence!  One thing I'd suggest: 
instead of saying {'e' vIQub}, just use {-law'}.  The last word would then be 
{'oHlaw'mo'}.  In fact, you might want to un-noun this sentence:

wej vInIDpu', Sojvam vIparmo' 'ej luparHa'law'mo' latlhpu'.

> 	chorgh) I think that you can do appositives if the subject or object is
> not 3rd person.  You just use the appropriate verb prefix and put the 
appositive
> in the place of the subject or object.  I don't know about other forms yet, 
but
> this is at least something.  Here are some examples.
> 				jagh boQaw'nIS negh
> 			You, the soldiers, must destroy the enemy.

Actually, this is not apposition, this is direct address, or whatever it's 
called.  Think of it spoken this way:

jagh boQaw'nIS, negh.

> 				loDvam vIvorlaH Qel
> 			              I, a doctor, can cure this man.

I see what you're getting at.  No, I don't think it'd work this way.  Try it 
like this:

loDvam vIvorlaH jIH, Qel.

> 	Hut)  One last thing:
> 
> 				       SaQaw'moH
> 			       I will give orders for your destruction.

Nope.  This is "I will cause all of you to destroy."  You need to say

lIQaw'lu'meH jIra'
I command in order that you (plural) are destroyed.

-- 
SuStel
Beginners' Grammarian
Stardate 97168.5

Back to archive top level