tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Aug 03 15:37:54 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: lopno'
- From: Robyn Stewart <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: KLBC: lopno'
- Date: Mon, 3 Aug 1998 15:31:14 -0700 (PDT)
---Christiane Scharf <[email protected]> wrote:
> jang Qov:
> > ---Christiane Scharf <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > qaSpa' lopno' not jupvam vISuchpu'. juHDaj Daq
> > > vIDellu'.
> >
> > DoSlIj vIlegh 'ej bIpabHa'chu' jIjatlhlaHbe', 'ach mIwvetlh
> > vIchupbe'.
> > <jIHvaD juHDaj Daq Dellu'> yIjatlh. mIwvam nap law' mIwlij nap puS.
>
> qatlh? Why is this simpler? After all, my version is even shorter.
Ok, reasons.
1. It's true that a verb prefix can refer to a first or second person
indirect object instead of a direct object, but when you already have
/-lu'/ reversing the prefix anyway, it's dubious.
2. /juHDajDaq vIDellu'/ means 'I was described at her house' and the
only difference is the space, or a slight stress difference when spoken.
3. Usually the verbs where the 'prefix trick' is used are the ones
where the literal interpretation sounds funny anyway. So /HInob/ is
likely to be interbreted as "give it to me" while /HIDel/ without
context obviously means "describe me."
4. You have to wait until the final syllable of the entence before
knowing what word plays what role in the sentence.
> > DaH *plate* mughbogh mu' wISov. wa' jengva', cha' ngop.
>
> KGTDaq mu'meyvam lutu'lu'? wej paqvam vIghaj.
HIja'. KGTDaq bIH.
> > > jup loDnI' De'wI' tlhojlu'.
> >
> > mu' DawIvHa'pu''a'? /tlhojlu'/? "It was realized"? "One
realized it"?
> > chaq qaq /De'wI' tu' vay'/ pagh /SaH De'wI' net tlhoj/?
>
> chupta'ghachlIj cha'DIch vIparHa'. (I think I've used {-ghach} for the
> first time here... chollaw' Seng)
Shrug. I would have said /qechlIj cha'DIch/, and would translate
/chupta'ghachlIj/ first as "your having suggested it" or something,
referring to the act. That's me. I have no idea what a Klingon would
say.
> > > SIbI' De'wI' charghta' ghomHom. Quj QujtaH.
> >
> > wa' Quj luQujtaHchugh, vaj moHaq /lu-/ yIlo'.
>
> wa' Quj Qujmey law' ghap QujtaH. Quj mI' vISovbe' 'ach...
>
> _I_ treated {ghom} as singular. Is a {ghom} grammatically plural? If
> this is the case, you contradict yourself. You don't comment on
{De'wI'
> charghta' ghom} but you do comment on {Quj QujtaH}. Both have the same
> subject and both have a singular object.
You're right. ghom is singular. I read the first sentence as
correct, then cached its subject in my head as "they" instead of "it."
DopDaq qul yIchenmoH QobDI' ghu'.
==
Qov - Beginners' Grammarian
_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com