tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Aug 01 15:27:36 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC - ratlh tuv'el
- From: Robyn Stewart <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: KLBC - ratlh tuv'el
- Date: Sat, 1 Aug 1998 15:20:59 -0700 (PDT)
---Burt Clawson <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> KLBC - ratlh tuv'el
>
>
> I received a message off the list telling me I should stay with it.
I'm not sure
> exactly how the rumor started, but I have no intention of leaving,
and I never
> said I was thinking about leaving.
pIch vIghajlaw' jIH. bep wa' nuv 'ej QIn tlhegh vIlaDtaHvIS ghaH
vIqawHa'. jIjangDI' jIjatlh tlhegh Dataghta' SoH.
> boparHa'laH pagh boparHa'laHbe' 'ach jIratlhtaH.
vIparHa'.
> qatlho'. not jIjegh 'e' vIHechbejqu'. chaq Dochmey vIghItlhpu'bogh
> DalaDnISqa'
> bIyeptaHvIS. jIjeghrup 'e' Harlaw' Hoch, 'ach vIjatlh.
You mean /vIjatlhbe'/ or /not vIjatlh/?
> qaStaHvIS qep'a''e'
> chu'chu'wI'pu' Hechbe'ba'mo' neH jabbI'IDghom'e' beptaH vay'.
> During qep'a' someone was complaining that the list
> was obviously not meant for utter newbies only.
Lets see what's going on here ...
qaStaHvIS qep'a' - during qep'a'
qaStaHvIS qep'a''e' - during _qep'a'_
no grammatical reason for the /-'e'/ but fine to emphasize /qep'a'/ if
you like.
chu'chu'wI'pu' Hechbe'ba'mo' jabbI'IDghom'e'
"this list obviously didn't intend complete newbies"
beptaH vay' - someone was complaining
Ok, now I see what's going on.
1. if you believe /-'e'/ to be serving a grammatical function there,
you're confused. It simply serves to emphasize /qep'a'/ and
/jabbI'IDghom/ the way underlining or special wording might.
2, /Hech/ means "intend" not "intend for." We have a noun suffix that
means "intended for," "for the benefit of." yIlo'.
3. We tend to err on the side of caution in deciding which verbs are
verbs of saying.
How about:
qaStaHvIS qep'a' beptaH vay'. chu'chu'wI'pu'vaD neH SaHbe'ba'
jabbI'IDghom jatlh.
During qep'a' someone was complaining. S/he said that the group
obviously wasn't here for just the newbies.
(Some people at qep'a' were trying to justify ?/chu'chu'wI'pu'
neHvaD/, 'ach mIwvetlh vIpar. I prefer to put /neH/ after the noun,
suffix and all.
> vIja' jabbI'IDghom vIparHa' jIH 'ej raptaH vIneH.
Reported speech in Klingon:
1. Use the verb of saying with a no-object prefix. You may put it
before or after the words said.
2. Report the words as said, without the change in person or aspect
used to English.
jIja' jabbI'IDghom vIparHa' jIH 'ej raptaH vIneH
> I said I like the list and I want it to stay the same as it is.
The ambiguity of whether you said both or whether you said one before,
and the other now is in both languages.
> rut jIQaghDI' jImoghchoH 'ach vInIDqa'.
jIyajchu'. jImoghtaH jIH. not rIn.
> note for Qov: I used the /'e'/ in /qep'a''e'/ and /jabbI'IDghom'e'/
to help
> identify the subject of each clause, but now I can't find my
reference and can't
> remember why I think it should be done that way. Is it right?
Ahh, now I know what you were after. The /-'e'/ suffix can be used to
mark the head of a relative clause. It could also be used to separate
out parts of an unwieldy sentence, taking advantage of the fact that
the first noun in a noun-noun can't have a type five suffix. It
didn't help in your sentence, except to the extent that it's going to
help you learn this stuff. Some examples.
puq HIvbogh targh vIHoH
This could be "I killed the child the targ attacked" or "I killed the
targ that attacked the child." To clarify:
puq'e' HIvbogh targh vIHoH - I killed the child ...
puq HIvbogh targh'e' vIHoH - I killed the targ ...
ghoch ngu'qangchoHDI' HoD puq yIHoH
This could be "When the captain becomes willing to identify the
destination, kill the child," or "When the captain's child becomes
willing to identify the destination, kill her." To make the
instructions perfectly clear to your joy'wI'pu' you could say:
ghoch ngu'qangchoHDI' HoD'e' puq yIHoH
This is unambiguously "When the captain becomes willing to identify
the destination, kill the child."
To give the second meaning (itself ambiguous in English) I'd repeat
the word that "her" represents. You could use the /-'e'/ again to
break up the string of nouns.
ghoch ngu'qangchoHDI' HoD puq'e' puq yIHoH - ... kill her (the child)
ghoch ngu'qangchoHDI' HoD puq'e' HoD yIHoH - ... kill her (the captain)
Always think about what ambiguities might be in something you write
(in any language!) and clarify if the intention isn't obvious.
==
Qov - Beginners' Grammarian
_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com