tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Aug 30 00:27:56 1998

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

RE: KLBC: paghvaD pab qab vInob

lab tuv'el:

>ja' pagh
>> lab tuv'el:
>> >
>> > KLBC - paghvaD pab qab vInob
>> >
>> > yItIv!

>> 'e' vInab.
>TRANS: I plan to? Can /'e'/ be used for that if the context is clear?

Well, we know that <'e'> refers to the previous sentence, and we don't know
that it has to be the speaker's previous sentence and not somebody else's. I
don't believe we have seen this usage in canon, though.


>> > jISeyHa'qu' SaSchu'mo' 'aj SoQ.
>> > "I was very disappointed because the admiral's lecture was
>> > utterly superficial."

>> maj. This meaning of <SaS> is slang, of course, but if you would use
>> "cool" in normal speech, this is no different.

> chong >;-)

'ach SaSbej qabqoqlIj...


>> > jagh vengDaq ghuS'a' cha?
>> > "Are the missiles ready to launch at the enemy's city?"

>> This doesn't quite work for me. <ghuS'a' cha> means "are the missiles
>> ready (to launch)", but the "to launch" part is really just Okrand's
>> clarification - "to launch" as opposed to "to explode" or "to turn into
>> small fish". <ghuS> is similar to English words like "armed", "loaded",
>> etc. For that reason, the locative makes me think the missiles are IN
>> the enemy city.

>> There are lots of ways to say this. Here is one: <jagh veng 'oH DoS'e'.
>> ghuS'a' cha?

> peng boghuSmoHlaHpa' jagh vengDaq peng boQeqnIS.
> "Before you can ready the missile, you must aim it at the enemy's city."

As ghunchu'wI' and Voragh noted, I got the meaning of <ghuS> a bit wrong,
which makes your sentence wrong. The net result is that you can lose the
<-moH> and this sentence will be fine. With that correction, it is a much
better sentence than your first try.


>> > reH bIHojqu'chugh Hoch pab Dapab not 'e' Daghoj.
>> > "You wil never learn to follow all the rules of grammer
>> > if you are always so cautious."

>> Close, but <... 'e' Daghoj> doesn't work. That says you will learn THAT
>> you follow the rules of grammar, not HOW to follow the rules. Try again
>> with <-meH>.

>reH bIHojqu'chugh not DaghojmeH Hoch pab Dapab.

>I think I made it worse than it was before! Now that I look at it, I see
>why /'e' Daghoj/ doesn't work, so how do I express this idea?

You just put the <-meH> on the wrong thing. The goal is to follow all the
rules, and you learn in order to get there: <... not Hoch pab DapabmeH
bIghoj>. Note also the prefix on <ghoj>.


>tlhInganpu' Hol bIjtaH tuv'el:

>chetlhu'moHta'mo' tlhIH'e' yuchraj neH DISopchu'!
>"Since you are the ones who have tempted us, we will eat only your
>chocolates!"

maj. The meanings of the <-'e'>, the <-ta'> and the <-chu'> do not come
through very well in the English, but that doesn't matter. What does matter
is the extra meaning they give the Klingon, which is well done.


>qaStaHvIS <qul tuq> much Qav'e' Dej ghe'naQ qach ngo'.
>"The old opera house collapsed during the final performance of <House of
>Fire>."

majQa'. Very nice sentence.


>SochleS qaHaq 'ej tlhuQlIj vIteq.
>"I will operate on you and remove your tail next week."

This is fine the way it is, but might be better served by a <-meH> clause.
The English "and" often seems to carry more meaning than the Klingon <'ej>,
which just joins sentences. In this case, the context makes the purpose of
the surgery clear, but why not use a "purpose" clause to make it explicit.
You could use some practice with <-meH> anyway.

Here are some additional sentences for practice, all of which can be
translated with a <-meH> clause:

I went to the pet store and retrieved my pet.
I had to open her cage to clean it. It was very messy.
I was out of rice (tIr), so I went to the store to get more.

pagh
Beginners' Grammarian

Back to archive top level