tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Nov 20 21:47:52 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: QAO lut
- From: Qov <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: KLBC: QAO lut
- Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 21:47:48 -0800
At 15:49 97-11-18 -0800, 'olIva' wrote:
}lut
}A Story
}pa'Daq chaHtaH cha' tlhIngan.
}Two Klingons are in a room.
pa'Daq chaHtaH cha' tlhIngan'e'
OR (and better to my ears)
pa'Daq cha' tlhIngan tu'lu'. (or {lutu'lu'})
The rule say to use lu-. Every example doesn't use it. I'm a diehard. :)
} <qatlh SuD chal 'e' vISov neH vIneH!>
} "I just want to know that why is the sky blue?!"
I would have put the {neH} after the {vIneH}, as I parse it as merely
anting, not wanting to merely know.
} <toH!> jach tlhIngan wa'DIch. <bIHegh 'e' Dawuqpu'!>
} "So!" exclaims the third Klingon. "You have decided to die!"
There is a much-ignored rule forbidding the use of aspect suffixes on a verb
whose object is {'e'}.
} qutluch lo'taHvIS, tlhIngan wejDIch HoH.
} He kills the third Klingon with a qutluch.
}
} <wejpuH!> jatlh tlhIngan cha'DIch. <'ach bIlughbej'a'?>
} "Charming!" says the second Klingon. "But are you sure that you are
} right?"
}
} Heghpu'bogh porgh bej tlhIngan wa'DIch, 'ej Hagh.
} The first Klingon looks at the dead body, and laughs.
}
}
}<jIlughqu', 'ej meq DaSov,> jatlh tlhIngan wa'DIch.
}"I _am_ right, and you know why," says the first Klingon.
}
}<reH lugh charghwI'!!!>
}"The victor is always right!!!"
jIHaghqu'. lut vIpolbej. cha'logh mu'tlhegh Qav yajnISlu', qar'a'? :-)
}Questions:
}
}The addendum to TKD gives <jatlh> as "to say", but in KGT (p.30), MO
}tells us not to confuse the different verbs of saying, and gives <ja'> as
}"to say", and <jatlh> as "to speak". So am I right to use <jatlh> here, or
}not?
I think the note on p. 30 is more concerned about not confusing {jat} with
one of the verbs of saying {ja'}, {jatlh} or {jach}. {ja'} and {jatlh} can
both be used in attributed speech. The difference may be in what objects
they can take.
You've used jatlh correctly. Actually I as so busy laughing at the story, I
forgot to check the grammar. :)
}Can one just call the Klingons <wa'DIch> and <wejDIch> after they have
}been introduced, with the word <tlhIngan> understood?
It works for me, and we have canon in that a duel second is known as a
{cha'DIch}. That suggests that the ordinal numbers can be treated as
nouns--and SuStel has just pointed out in another thread that Okrand stated
explicitly that numbers can be subjects and
}Which verbs can one use (without controversy) in place of <jatlh> when
}quoting speech? <ra'>? <tlhob>? <jang>? <jach>?
Completely without controversy? Off the top of my head:
ja' ... jatlh ... jach ... ghel ... tlhob ... jang
Let's try ra' and maq, too and see if anyone objects.
}Is there a way of saying "with a qutluch", without a separate clause?
chaq: maghwI' HoH SuvwI' qutluch.
}How does one distinguish between the following?
}
}he/she just knows Sov neH
}he/she wants to know Sov neH
The verb can be distingushed with a suffix, like {Sov neHba'} or {Sov neHqu'}
I'd have to say something like {Dujmo' Sov neH} to disambiguate the other.
}How can <wejpuH> be used "only ironically" (TKD p.57)? According to my
}dictionary, irony is "use of words to mean the opposite of what is said",
}i.e. with a meaning opposite to the normal one. So unless the normal
}meaning of <wejpuH> is "charming" in the normal sense, its use in the
}opposite sense can't be called ironic!
wejpuH has the same meaning as the English word charming, when the latter is
used ironically. Perhaps there is another translation, like "pathetic" or
"disgusting" or ... I can't quite find the right word. You knew what the
Klingon meant when he said "Charming" in the movie. That's what wejpuH
means. The definition does not imply that wejpuH ever had a positive meaning.
}
}<bIlughbej'a'> seems to mean "is it certain that...?", rather than "are
}_you_ certain that...?". Does this matter?
If it did, you could say {bIlugh 'e DaSovqu''a'} or {DIch Daghaj'a'?}
Qov [email protected]
Beginners' Grammarian