tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Oct 13 21:38:47 1997

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: KLBC: practise



On Sat, 11 Oct 1997 21:45:55 -0700 (PDT)  Alan Anderson 
<[email protected]> wrote:
> ja' muHwI':
> >vIparHa' be'Hom 'IH ghaHmo'.
> 
> ja' Qov:
> >Nghgh.  I couldn't understand this clearly in Klingon: I thought you
> >were trying to say {be'Hom vIparHa' 'IHmo' ghaH}, then when I went to
> >translate it I realized what you did.  It's supposed to say "I like
> >her because she is a beautiful girl."  Now I'm not sure whether it's
> >hard to parse, or it's just me.  I now understand you are talking
> >about Imran.

But even if it IS supposed to be "I like her because she is a 
beautiful girl", it probably simply wrong. The {-mo'} suffix is 
not justifiable at the end of a sentence, if this is a noun 
suffix, and we have no ruling on it if it is a verb suffix, 
though since it is described as acting like the noun suffix, I 
personally can't abide by it coming at the end.

be' 'IH ghaHmo' vIparHa'.

I find that a LOT easier to understand. Meanwhile, I agree that 
it sounds a lot better as:

'IHmo' be' vIparHa'.

Note that this can be translated two different ways with 
identical meanings, depending on which phrase you choose to 
attach {be'} to.
 
> bImobbe', Qov.  jIyajchu'pa' wejlogh vIlaDnIS jIH.

'ej wejlogh vIlaDta'DI' vIpartaH...
 
> Putting the suffix {-mo'} on a pronoun is a bit confusing; is it a verb
> suffix or a noun suffix?

This is where word order can really help. While there are 
exceptions, the basic sentence structure in Klingon is to first 
set up the environment for the action of the main verb (time 
stamps, adverbials and dependant clauses) and then give the 
object, verb and subject. We know that some dependent clauses 
(-taHvIS} can follow the main verb, though I personally see this 
as a stylistic impurity. The sentences simply work better if you 
save the main action for last.
 
> Anytime an adjectival verb is used as the object of a "to be" sentence,
> it seems a bit contrived anyway.  {'IH be'Hom} just sounds a lot better
> to me than {be'Hom 'IH ghaH}.

jIQochbe'bej!
 
> -- ghunchu'wI'
> 
> 
charghwI'






Back to archive top level