tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Dec 11 07:06:05 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Doch vISIQ
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Doch vISIQ
- Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 10:05:25 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
- Priority: NORMAL
On Thu, 10 Dec 1998 15:16:27 -0800 (PST) [email protected] wrote:
> >> Dochvam labbogh ghunchu'wI' 'e' vIHevbe'. taQ.
>
> >nuqjatlh? ...
>
> >Maybe it is an accidentally detached suffix {-'e'}. Then the
> >sentence would mean "I did not receive the ghunchu'wI' who sent
> >this thing." taQ Dajatlh 'ej jIQochbe'chu'. taQqu' mu'tlheghlIj.
>
> how about:
>
> lab ghunchu'wI' 'ach QInDaj vIHevbe'.
>
> better?
pup.
> >> vIwuqbe'. De'wI' pIn luwuq. qach ngo' <token ring> ngo' 'ej Do QIv.
>
> >nuqjatlh? I see three nouns, each followed by three adjectival
> >verbs with a verb conjunction stuffed between the last two of
> >these noun phrases. I don't begin to understand.
>
> As you noted later in this, when I am distracted I really mess up my
> word order, I'll try again:
>
>
> vIwuqbe'. luwuq De'wI' pIn . ngo' <token ring> 'ej QIv DoDaj.
pup.
> >> chaq. jonwI'pu' law' ru' neH.
>
> >nuqjatlh? "He is merely temporary - many engineers."? "He wants
> >many temporary engineers." - breaking rules to say this?
>
> I was going for "many of the engineers are only temporary".
> Again, I forget my word order - I guess I need to keep practicing!
>
> ru' neH jonwI' law' - any closer???
Sumchu'. pup.
> >> HIja'. naDev <network> jonwI' rap chamwI'.
> >> 'oH pong 'e' neH.
>
> >Don't use {'e'} with {neH}. Hmmm. Maybe you just have hickups
> >and it SOUNDS like you are saying {'e'}? Just insert them into
> >random sentences... But then, THIS sentence wouldn't mean
> >anything without it. Maybe you meant {pongDaj 'oH neH.}? "It is
> >merely his name."
>
> Well, not HIS name, but only A name. What would you sugest for that?
I'd get away from the whole "is" thing and say:
ram pongvam.
"This name is insignificant." I think that works better than
using {'oH} and {neH}. Meanwhile, whether it is HIS name or not,
it is THIS name; the one we've been discussing.
> >> DaHjaj paw neH jan bIrtaH.
>
> >If you are using {bIr} to describe {jan} as "cold", you can't
> >use {-taH} on it. Only {-qu', -be', -Ha'} are allowed on verbs
> >when they are used adjectivally.
>
> A devise that is continually cold - the refridgerator.
Even though this is not the right direction to go in this
instance, remember that if you really wanted to say {jan bIrtaH}
(and you can't, since that uses an illegal suffix on the verb
while it is being used as an adjective) you can instead say
{bIrtaHbogh jan}. Relative clauses using these verbs are often
synonymous to their being used adjectivally, except that the
grammar rules are less restrictive in terms of the suffixes you
can use. Okrand uses this synonym trait in order to deal with a
noun needing two descriptors. A small, green glass could be
called {SuDbogh HIvje' mach} or {machbogh HIvje' SuD}, but it
can't, so far as we've seen yet, be a {HIvje' mach SuD} or any
variation on that using {je} or {'ej} or anything of that sort.
> How about just <bIrmoHwI'>???
Fine. That is more accurately its function. The point of a
refrigerator is not to BE cold. It is to cause OTHER things to
be cold. Also, if you wanted to use {-taH} here, you can.
{bIrmoHtaHwI'} is fine for "thing which causes things to
continue to be cold" or "thing which continuously causes things
to be cold", which arguably means the same thing. Either way,
the things are continuously cold and this thing causes this
condition.
> >> wa'Hu' quS law' paw.
>
> >You really need to work on your word order. Lots.
>
> Agreed. More practice...
And just for the record, that should be {wa'Hu' paw quS law'.}
> >> wejHu' paw qa'vIn chenmoHwI'.
>
> >maj. chaq bIlabqa'pa' qa'vIn DatlhutlhnIS.
>
> See, sometimes I DO get it right...maybe more <qa'vIn>...
Bringing up one of the awkward ideas to convey in Klingon. How
do you say, "I want more coffee,"? Well, Klingon doesn't really
give us a pat answer for that. There are several somewhat weak
or awkward ways to say this, but for the most part, this is not
something we can simply say to convey quite the same meaning.
nuv: qa'vIn vIneH!
jabwI': qa'vIn Daghaj!
nuv: bIrchoH 'ej tlhoS vItlhutlhta'. qa'vIn tuj HInobqa'!
or
nuv: bIrchoH 'ej tujqa' qa'vInwIj vIneH. qa'vIn tuj yIchel!
Or imagine a Klingon and Ferengi talking:
V: Huch vIneH.
K: Huch Daghaj!
V: HuchwIj vIghur vIneH.
I guess, for "I need to drink more coffee," I could say {qa'vIn
vItlhutlhta'bogh vIghurnIS." That does cover it, but it seems
awkward. Likely it is the best approach. I'm open to
suggestions, however.
> >> vIngrupbe' 'ach jIHvaD bep Hoch.
> >> nachwIj 'oy'moH Dochmeyvam.
>
> >bIwuQtaHlaw'mo' jIbelHa'.
>
> bIbelHa'mo', qathlo'.
bIwuQmo' qatlho'Qo'.
> >charghwI' 'utlh
>
> SIHwI'
charghwI' 'utlh