tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Feb 02 12:34:31 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: Film summary
In article <[email protected]>, Qov
<[email protected]> writes
>}>{qaStaHvIS be'Hom yIn naQ be'Hom ghong BOB}
>}>
>}>Does that have grammar I need to explain, or you just didn't think of it?
>}>
>}I understand that as: "While the girl's entire life is happening, BOB
>}abuses the girl." Or, in proper English (not verbatim translation) "BOB
>}abuses her for her entire life."
>
>Yes. Or "abused."
>
Bloomin' past tense.
>}>majQa'. Qu' vIchupbogh Data'chu'ta'. jabbI'ID Daj Dalabta' 'ej bIghojlaw'
>}>
>}
>}You have clearing accomplished the task I suggested?
>
>"thoroughly" or "completely" not "clearing." You did exactly what I was
>looking for.
>
My incompetence at typing prevented me from typing "clearly".
>}>More complicated:
>}>
>}>{regh volchaHDaj} "His shoulder was bleeding."
>}>{volchaHDaj qIp HIvje'} "The mug hit his shoulder."
>}>{HIvje' chagh verengan} "The Ferengi dropped the mug"
>}>
>}>reghbogh volchaHDaj qIp HIvje' chaghbogh verengan
>}>This could mean either:
>}>"The mug the Ferengi dropped hit his bleeding shoulder."
>}>or
>}>"The Ferengi who dropped the mug hit his bleeding shoulder."
>}
>}Ah, I can just about see both meanings. I think I'd have originally
>}translated the first as:
>}
>}The Ferengi dropped the mug which hit his bleeding shoulder.
>}
>}And then re-arranged it to give something close to what you put. (Much
>}more wordy and bad though).
>
>Ah. You must remember that the {-bogh} coes on the verb of the SECONDARY
>clause, not the main clause.
>
>In your sentence the main clause is "the Ferengi dropped the mug" in mine it
>is "the mug hit his bleeding shoulder."
>
>Translate "The Ferengi dropped the mug which hit his bleeding shoulder."
This is like the previous one, right? The guard disturbed the targ who
was sleeping. So...
The Ferengi dropped the mug {main clause}
The mug hit his bleeding shoulder {secondary clause}
reghbogh volchaHDaj qIpbogh HIvje''e' chagh verengan
I think.
>}Something tickles the something
>}
>}The man who is respected by the alien tickles the targ that is bitten by
>}the bug.
>}
>}The alien who respects the man tickles the targ that is bitten by the
>}bug.
>
>You're recasting these to passive voice in English. Not the point.
Sorry, it's just easier for me to do something like "The man is
respected by the alien" than "The man whom the alien respects" because I
am a fool.
> Combine
>each of the possible subjects with each of the possible objects to get the
>four possibilities. (Eight if you count the tickles/deserves.)
>
>The man whom the alien respects
>The alien who respects the man
>
>tickles
>
>the targ the bug bites.
>the bug that bites the targ.
>
>}I just want to check something though. Say I have a sentence
>}constructed like this...
>}
>}Noun1 RelativeVerb(-bogh) Noun2 NormalVerb Noun3
>}
>}The object of the normal verb can only be Noun2, right? Basically, I
>}just want to check that there is no way I could have read your example
>}so that I was tickling the bug?
>
>Oh oh. I haven't made my point at ALL. The object could be either Noun2 or
>Noun1. I gave you two relative clauses in one example. I suppose I should
>have started with one.
>
Actually, you did make your point. I thought for quite a while that
that was the way it was intended. A couple of things stopped me.
1) tlhIbwI' jIH
2) It didn't make sense to say that you could tickle a bug.
3) It seemed to fit that the object was Noun2 (In this case, the targ,
not the bug). However, of course, targ was in the Noun3 position
(again, I am a fool) so that argument falls flat on its face.
>}But, for your meaning I would put the topic marker on the man.
>}
>}targh chopbogh ghew qotlh loD'e' vuvbogh nov
>
>You have "The man whom the alien respects" fixed, but the object is still
>ambiguous. Does he tickle the bug or the targ? This sentence requires TWO
>{'e'}mey for full clarity.
I even thought of doing that! And then convinced myself it wasn't
right. Where's that section of Klingon invectives? };)
>
>}Can I try a few now?
>
>Please do.
>
>}I have a targ. {targh vIghaj}
>}The targ eats Ferengi. {verengan Sop targh}
>}
>}Add -bogh to the secondary sentence's verb and drop it in, so...
>}
>}verengan Sopbogh targh vIghaj
>}
>}I have a targ who eats Ferengi.
>
>majQa'! Of course this could also be "I have a Ferengi that a targ will
>eat," but I think you'd be prouder of the targ. :)
Well, after I'd convinced myself (the wrong way) it didn't seem
necessary but now I know that either the subject or the object of the
relative clause can be the subject or the object of the main clause, it
does make sense.
>
>}I see a Klingon. {tlhIngan vIlegh}
>}The Klingon kills the Romulan. {romuluSngan HoH tlhIngan}
>
>}I see a Klingon who kills the Romulan.
>}romuluSngan HoHbogh tlhIngan vIlegh
>
>majQa'. Dayaj. The alternate meaning is "I see a Romulan whom a Klingon
>kills," but it amounts to the same thing.
I suppose in many situations, it could. Of course, it's better to be
accurate (Klingons may be inaccurate, but they are never imprecise ;)
Unless, of course, it went into the past/future tense. In that case,
the topic marker would be necessary cos I could have seen the Romulan or
the Klingon but not the other.
>
>}The Klingon Ambassador attacks the Terran.
>} {tera'ngan HIv tlhIngan Duy'a'}
>}The Terran plots revenge {bortaS nab tera'ngan}
>}
>}bortaS nabbogh tera'ngan HIv tlhIngan Duy'a'
>}
>}The Klingon Ambassador attacks the Terran who plots revenge.
>}
>}bortaS nab tera'ngan HIvbogh tlhIngan Duy'a'
>}
>}The Klingon Ambassador who attacks the Terran plots revenge (okay, so
>}that one doesn't make much sense because if he attacks him why does he
>}plot revenge for later. It might be better as "The Ambassador who
>}attacked the Terran plots revenge.")
>
>This one is quite ambiguous. I can see that the ambasador attacks the
>Terran, but you need a topic marker to let me know which one plots revenge.
>
>bortaS nab tera'ngan'e' HIvbogh tlhIngan Duy'a' (the Terran plots)
>bortaS nab tera'ngan HIvbogh tlhIngan Duy'a''e' (the ambassador plots)
>
This is my stupidity at being unable to accept that if the alien or the
man could do the tickling that the targ or the bug could be tickled and
then it just got me into a mess.
>}Just wondering whether I'd need the {-taH} suffix because I'm never sure
>}when to use that and when not to.
>
>If the idea that the action is ongoing towards no particular conclusion is
>important, use {-taH}. You're rarely wrong without it, it just adds
>information. The only time it is absolutely required is if you use the
>{-vIS} suffix.
I did actually think of that one because it resembled the difference in
French when you use the imperfect to say "I was in the ongoing process
of being in my room" (ie the -taH suffix) and then you jump in with the
perfect tense to say "and then the house blew up". Of course, this has
an implied "while" in it so the -vIS suffix would have alerted me to use
it (from now, anyway).
--
tlhIbwI'