tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Mar 25 20:40:01 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: KLBC:paqghommey
- From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>
- Subject: RE: KLBC:paqghommey
- Date: Wed, 26 Mar 97 03:48:40 UT
jatlh maqlIy:
> ghItlh IrmI:
> >wa''uy' paqmey ngaS paqqachwIj 'ej Dal bIH boch.
>
> qatlh Dal paqmeyraj? nuq SoHvaD Daj paqmey?
> Why are your books boring? What books are interesting to you?
That second sentence is all out of order. If you are asking "what
<something>," or "which <something>," it gets tricky. You usually have to
recast. A typical form:
paqmey Daj tIngu'!
Identify interesting books.
There's really no need to specify "books which YOU find interesting," since
you're talking to the person. If you want to say it it's not hard, but it's a
lot of extra work for something not really important. It also seems very
un-Klingon.
> >paqmey DInojDI', De'wI' wIlo'.
> > De'vaD jIngoy'.
Actually, it occurs to me that that first sentence would be a whole lot better
as
paqmey DInojmeH, De'wI' wIlo'.
> De'wI'pIn soH'a' pagh (paqmey) nojmoHwI'pIn SoH'a'?
> Are you the computer boss [Systems Librarian] or are you the
> causes-them-to-lend (books) boss [Circulation Librarian]?
We've had discussions before over whether sentence conjunctions like {pagh}
should join questions. These are yes/no questions, which are themselves
either/or situations. Saying (Y / N) either/or (Y / N) is silly. Just make
it two questions.
I would never have fully understood {nojmoHwI'pIn} had you not told me what
you meant. I'm not exactly sure of the exact definition of a Circulation
Librarian, so it's hard for me to advise you here. Maybe just {nojwI' tIn}
"lenders' boss"? Or {nojwI' vu'wI'} "lenders' manager"?
> >Holmey DaHad 'e' *in general* DaparHa''a' pagh tlhIngan Hol DaHaDtaH'a'
neH?
>
> DaH tlhIngan Hol neH vIghoj. chay' Qub ghotpu' 'e' vIghojmeH Holmey vIHad.
> I am learning only Klingon now. I study languages in order to learn how
> people think. [Read Whorf at an impressionable age.]
What we have here is a question-as-object. There is a lot of talk about
whether this sort of thing would be allowed in Klingon. I happen to believe
it is not. Does this make any sense to you:
I study languages in order that I learn that how do people think?
That's essentially how it comes off in Klingon. It's usually not *too* hard
to find a way to say this sort of thing without using a question-as-object:
yabDu' vIyajmeH, Holmey vIHaDtaH.
I order that I understand minds, I study languages.
Also notice that I used {-taH} on the verb {HaD}. It originally sounded like
you spent one night studying to do this; you weren't giving any indication
that this is an ongoing state, which it is.
If you think {yabDu'} is too vague, you could substitute {QubmeH mIwmey}
"procedures for thinking." This is, essentially, "how people think."
> QapHa' De'wI'maj. *magazines* tu'meH bobcho'Daj ghor 'oH. qay'qu' jay'!
> Our computer is malfunctioning. It broke its module for finding magazines.
> It's a damn nuisance!
Did the computer actively break its own module, or did something happen to
make it break? The former seems to indicate some desire on the computer's
part to cause it's own destruction! Let's change this:
"magazine"-mey tu'meH bobchu'Daj ghorlu'.
It's module for finding magazines was broken.
majQa', maqlIy! QaQ tlhIngan Hol laHlIj!
--
SuStel
Beginners' Grammarian
Stardate 97232.5