tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Nov 18 14:45:51 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC tlhIngan yot - 'ay' cha'DIch
- From: "Robyn Stewart" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: KLBC tlhIngan yot - 'ay' cha'DIch
- Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 14:43:53 PST
- Organization: NLK Consultants, Inc.
- Priority: normal
lab Doneq
>ghItlh Qov
>> Remember that {jatlh} is an exception to the SAO construction. No
>> {'e'}.
> It's difficult to remember things you didn't know }}:-)
> Where is it in TKD? (if it is there; I couldn't find it...)
It's towards the end of the section on sentence-as-object. I think
that is 6.2.5. Verbs of saying and {neH} are used without {'e'}, and,
from a message Marc Okrand sent us later, we know that the words said
are not the object of the verb. {jI'oj jIjatlh} "I said I was
thirsty," not {*jI'oj vIjatlh}.
>> {loD vIHoH vIneH jatlh} "He said he wanted to kill the man."
>>
>> Notice that the person of the attributed speech isn't changed as
>> is in English.
>So that's almost like <loD vIHoH vIneH> jatlh, qar'a'?
bIlugh.
>> }qech tlhaQ ghajmo' <ghotlha'> jatlh qarmob.
>> }Karmob says "Follow us" because he has a good idea.
>>
>> I think you meant to say {QaQ} not {tlhaQ}.
>I was thinking of "a funny idea", but I translated it into English
>as "good."
That's why I said "I think" -- the English equivalent of the {-law'}
suffix. I wasn't sure whether you had misremembered the word, or
just translated imprecisely. Either {tlhaQ} or {QaQ} can be used
there.
>> }bIghHa' ghoS wej.
>> }The three go to the prison.
>>
>> Someone might argue that you can't use a number this way. The only
>> use of a number as a noun that I know we have is {wa' yIHoH} for
>> "Kill one of them."
>Hov leng wej, qar'a'?
bIlugh. Saavik wIv 'avwI' 'ach Kirk puqloD HoH nISDI' ghaH.
>> loDvaD bIghHa' 'ay' 'elmoH - He makes the man enter the cell.
>> puqvaD Hol ghojmoH - He teaches the child Klingon.
> I don't get that. "He causes to enter the cell for the man"?
> Or is {-vaD} just to mark the first object here?
> And if you want to add an indirect object? (I can't think of an
> example right now, and I don't know if it's possible, but if it
> is...)
I'll answer the indirect object question first, because I need to
refer to it to answer the rest.
See the end of section 6 in the addendum. Indirect objects are
specifically addressed, and {-vaD} is used to indicate them.
puqbe'wI'vaD taj vInob - I will give my daughter the knife.
(or "I will give the knife to my daughter")
SoHvaD vIt vI'ang - I will show you the truth.
(or "I will reveal the truth to you")
With {-moH} verbs, this becomes a little twisted. I keep it
straight by thinking that verb + {-moH} means "cause to verb" or
"cause to be verbed."
When the verb with {-moH} is intransitive, or is acting
intransitively, the situation is simple: the verb becomes transitive,
and has one object.
jIvum - I work
muvummoH pIn - the boss makes me work
Sop puq
puq SopmoH Hergh - the medicine makes the child eat
But as you noticed, if the base verb is transitive, there can
sometimes be two objects:
Soj Sop puq
puqvaD Soj SopmoH Hergh - medicine makes the child eat the food
>From observation, what happens is that of the two objects, the
one that would be the object of the bare verb becomes the object of
the {-moH} verb, and the other object is treated as an indirect
object. As far as the Klingon grammarian is concerned, it probably
is an indirect object.
It's easiest to understand if you look at the {-moH} verb that we
have our own word for, instead of having to use "makes" or "causes"
to translate.
mangvaD to' ghojmoH Sa' - The general teaches the soldier tactics.
(Or "the general teaches tactics to the soldier") If you think of
{ghojmoH} as "caused to learn," it almost looks like you are saying
that the general caused the tactics to learn, for the benefit of the
soldier. So don't think of it this way. Think that the general
caused learning, the thing learned was the tactics and the
beneficiary/recipient/target was the soldier.
This is where thinking of {loDvaD pa' 'elmoH} as "he caused the room
to be entered" helps me. I am in no way implying that {-moH} has
anything to do with passive voice, just trying to suggest a way to
make this less confusing. Entering causation occured. The thing
directly entered was the room. The thing that got made to enter was
the man.
>> }bIghHa' 'ay'Daq ghaHtaHvIS loD lojmIt ngaQmoH.
>> }He locks the door while the man is in the prison cell.
>>
>> I don't really like this construction, but if you use it, you
>> have to say {loD'e'}.
>Why? I don't see any ambiguity here (maybe "the man's door", but
>that doesn't make sense to me in this context), and no reason
>for emphasis either.
bIghHa'Daq jIH - "I am in the cell"
bIghHa'Daq ghaH - "he is in the cell"
bIghHa'Daq ghaH loD'e' - "the man is in the cell"
bIghHa'Daq loD - "man in cell" (clipped Klingon)
It's simply that the way to say "the man is..." is Klingon is to
say {... ghaH loD'e'}.
>> I prefer {bIghHa' 'ay' QamtaHvIS loD ...} or something else
>> with an active verb rather than the to-be construction.
>I made up this sentence while considering {pa'wIjDaq jIHtaH} (TKD
>6.3), and didn't realize there may be a better way to express it. My
>vocabulary is not that big yet :(
ghu'lIj vIyajchu'. It's definitely a vocabulary-building exercise.
Whenever you find yourself using to be, have a quick look for a real
verb that might do the job better. In modern Russian there is no
verb to be in the present tense, you just leave it out, or pause
slightly, or write a dash, and it is normal to use a verb like sit,
stand, lie, or hang when one of these would fill the gap.
>> chegh.
> lutvam jIchenmoHtaHvIS chaq jIchech jIH! }}:-)
{vIchenmoHtaHvIS} Dalo'nIS. bIchechtaH'a'? :)
> (should {chaq} go in front of the sentence (before {lutvam}), or is
> it good where it is?
It's fine where it is. It seems that in many places in TKD where it
says "sentence," you can read "clause" for complex sentences with
more than one clause.
-Qov