tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Mar 06 18:01:18 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: KLBC: bomHom vIchenmoH 'e' vInIDta'
- From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>
- Subject: RE: KLBC: bomHom vIchenmoH 'e' vInIDta'
- Date: Fri, 7 Mar 97 01:10:36 UT
jatlh QI'HoS:
> bomHom vIchenmoH 'e' vInIDta'
There's a rule in TKD that says you cannot put an aspect suffix on the second
verb of a sentence-as-object sentence. This has to be {bomHom vIchenmoHta'
'e' vInID}. Yes, it looks wrong, but it's not.
> =20
Better shorten your columns setting!
> tlhIngan maH!!
> we are klingon!
maj.
> mayInmoH machargh
> we conquer because we live
{-moH} is "cause," {-mo'} is "because."
mayInmo' machargh
> macharghmoH mayIn
> we live because we conquer
macharghmo' mayIn
For both of these, you might want to help make the point by including the
{-taH} suffix.
mayIntaHmo' macharghtaH.
macharghtaHmo' mayIntaH.
> not toy'wI'mey maH 'e' teHmoH tlhIngan vajpu' maH
> because we are klingon warriors we will never be slaves.
You don't want the {teH} or the {'e'} construction here at all. Let me start
at the beginning to show you what needs to be done.
The sentence can be broken up into two main parts: "Because we are Klingon
warriors," and "We will never be slaves."
The first part is based on the sentence "We are Klingon warriors." {tlhIngan
vajpu' maH}. Then add the "because" to the pronoun, which acts as the verb in
a "to be" construction. {tlhIngan vajpu' maHmo'} "Because we are Klingon
warriors."
The second part is "We will never be slaves. You're almost there already.
"Slave" is {toy'wI''a'} in TKD. So, we get {not toy'wI''a' maH}. The plural
suffixes are usually plural, so you don't need it. The correct one would be
{-pu'}, though: {not toy'wI''a'pu' maH}.
Now, just put them together!
tlhIngan vajpu' maHmo' not toy'wI''a' maH.
> tlhIngan maH!!
> we are klingon!
> Notes:
> I was unsure whether to use moH or mo' as a verb suffix on
> mayInmoH=20
> and macharghmoH. I get these suffs mixed up a lot.
See above.
> =20
> I deliberatley used the -mey plural on toy'wI' to try and convey=20
> distaste for the notion of being a slave. Is this reasonable??
Not really. Everybody tries to do something like this when they start. But
putting {-mey} on a being capable of using language isn't derogatory, it
indicates that the noun is plural and scattered all over the place.
{toy'wI'mey} means "servants all over the place."
Even those ideas which ARE derogatory don't seem like they would be used to
directly insult someone. Like saying {SoSlIj} instead of {SoSlI'}. It
doesn't sound insulting, it sounds like you don't know how to speak properly.
This is just my opinion, of course, but mangling the grammar seems a poor way
to get in a good insult.
> I had trouble with the 'slaves' line - I tried it several ways
> before I came up with the one you see above - for instance
> tlhIngan vajpu' maHmoH toy'wI'mey maHbe' (can you have DImaHbe'
> ??)
Ohhh, you almost had it! Use {-mo'} instead of {-moH}, though! No, {DImaH}
would mean that you have a plural object, but {toy'wI''a'} isn't the object.
Playing with pronouns can be tricky, but they definitely don't get verb
prefixes!
--
SuStel
Beginners' Grammarian
Stardate 97180.1