tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Nov 10 18:31:59 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: Misc
- From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>
- Subject: RE: Misc
- Date: Mon, 10 Nov 97 12:39:24 UT
If you have multiple questions to ask and/or multiple comments to make, I
recommend that you do so in separate messages.
[email protected] on behalf of Anthony.Appleyard wrote:
> Neal Schermerhorn <[email protected]> wrote (Subject: Re: plans):-
> > Note: Complete refutation of QAO contained herein!
> Sorry: what is `QAO'?
It refers to "Question as Object." SAO means "Sentence As Object," the
construction described in TKD 6.2.5., and some people maintain that because a
question is a sentence, a QAO is just as valid as any other SAO. Others
(myself included) maintain that a QAO is really trying to perform the function
of a relative clause, and should not be used.
> > ghItlh David Crowell "The human knows who took the money" ...
> Here we come again to the lack of a Klingon for the interrogative
adjective
> "which?". For a main clause `which?' question "Which ship needs a new
> torpedo-tube?" would this be OK? {chetvi' chu' ghajnISbogh Duj'e' ngu' nuq?}
> "What is the identity of the ship that needs a new torpedo-tube?".
This is "What identifies the ship which needs a new torpedo tube?" To
translate your English sentence, I'd say {chetvI' chu' poQbogh Duj'e' yIngu'}
"Identify the ship which needs a new torpedo tube."
> Perhaps for
> an indirect question "Maltz knows which ship needs a new torpedo-tube?"
would
> this be OK? {chetvi' chu' ghajnISbogh Duj'e' ngu' Sov matlh}?
How are you using {ngu'}? I think you'd better check its TKD definition.
> ............................................
> Sorry, but what is parHol?
A term some people use as a shortened form of "Paramount Hol," the gibberish
we sometimes hear on Star Trek.
> ............................................
> Has anyone yet heard how to make a generalized adverbial? I.e. if {X} is
any
> desired stative verb "is X", how to say e.g. "he writes X-ly"? {chech} = "is
> drunk", but how to say "This ship handles drunkenly when going astern. Check
> its control wiring."?
Thanks to the advice and discussion of other members of this list, I've come
to realize that the term "stative verb" is highly misleading when it comes to
Klingon verbs. I prefer to make the distinction between "verbs of quality,"
translated as "be <something>," and other verbs; and also the distinction of
intransitive verbs (which include the verbs of quality) vs. transitive.
However, there is no general rule of thumb for using a verb to create an
adverbial sense. Each case is different. For example, to translate your
sentence, including the metaphor, I might say
Duj 'em ghoStaHvIS Duj, chechwI' rur.
The ship resembles a drunkard when it's going backwards.
Literally, "While the ship is approaching the ship's area behind, it resembles
a drunkard."
I've converted your English metaphorical adverb into a Klingon main sentence
similie.
However, I might do it differently in a different case:
I walked carefully.
jIyIttaHvIS jIyeptaH.
Literally, "While I was walking, I was being careful."
> ............................................
> KGT gives {jor} = "explode". This, I suppose, *{jorwI'} = "an explosive"
> instead of having to use {peng} for ordinary immobile explosive devices like
I
> have seen before.
{jorwI'} "explosive" is in TKD.
> ............................................
> KGT gives {lupwI'} = "jitney", "bus". (A jitney is a sort of passenger
> vehicle.) Thus, presumably, (a) {lup} = "transport physically" as distinct
> from {jol} = "transport by beaming"; (b) At long last we have a word for a
> ground vehicle instead of having to use {Duj} for all vehicles alike.
{lupwI'} was first used by Okrand in Conversational Klingon, and was
translated as "jitney." It is nothing new.
> ............................................
> Is there a verb "pertain to, relate to"?
No.
> This meaning is not always the same as
> ordinary ownership such as Klingon expresses by plain apposition.
That's not quite true. Klingon possessive is expressed in the same way that
apposition is: by putting two nouns next to each other. That doesn't mean
they are the same thing. The only example of Klingon apposition I can think
of is from SkyBox card #S26:
DuraS be'nI'pu' lurSa' be'etor je.
The sisters of the House of Duras, Lursa and B'Etor,
> ............................................
> Without making two sentences of it, is there any way agreed yet of saying
> e.g. "I had to take 3 loads of garbage out of the ship in which you fled."?
No there isn't. See the FAQ:
http://labs.thomtech.com/~dspeers/klingon/faq.htm#3.6
What's wrong with translating a single English sentence into two Klingon
sentences? Not only does Okrand do it, but Klingon is simply more expressive
with shorter, direct statements.
DujvetlhDaq bIHaw'pu'. wejlogh Dujvo' veQ vIteqnIS.
SuStel
Stardate 97860.4