tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Jan 02 22:48:32 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC -- jIlIHegh (extreme beginner)
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: KLBC -- jIlIHegh (extreme beginner)
- Date: Sat, 3 Jan 1998 01:46:23 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
- Priority: NORMAL
Okay, you corrected my corrections, and I'd like to point out
this:
On Fri, 2 Jan 1998 12:22:33 -0800 (PST) Qov <[email protected]>
wrote:
> At 12:45 98-01-01 -0800, notjISaH wrote:
> }In a message dated 97-12-26 23:33:58 EST, you write:
> }...
> }Qu'vatlh!!! jabbI'IDghom lIHbogh *FAQ*Hom'e' vIlaDpu'. *website* *FAQ*
> }vIlaDpu'be'. jeH jiHlaw'. poHvatlhDaq *website*Daq *FAQ* vInejpu'be'.
> }chotu'moHDI' vIlaD.
>
> Always {jIH}. A vowel wrong in {poHvetlh}, "that time."
So, you think {jeH jIHlaw'} is a sentence? Qov! How COULD you?
You corrected the case of the "i" and didn't see anything else
wrong with this? A cacaphony of people individually leapt upon
my {loDnI'lIj} and now you do this and nobody else says a word.
[sigh]
Maybe if I were prettier...
> }--The construction {poHvatlhDaq} does not seem very probable from what I have
> }read. Can the locative suffix be used to mean "at" a time? Or would it maybe
> }have to be some complex "During the time before ____some specific
> }occurence___"?
>
> Klingons don't habitually use the metaphor of place to refer to times, so
> omit {-Daq}. You just need {poHvetlh} for "at that time."
I hate for us to be giving such a promising new student such
conflicting advice, so I'll try to back up my suggestion with
the one bit of canon I have on the topic of the use of {-vam} on
time stamps. Note that he never mentions {-vetlh} at all and
from the sound of it, I doubt {-vetlh} works with time.
**********************Begin Okrand's response on MSN:
Regarding "tonight" and so forth, I'd go along with your
suggestion:
DaHjaj ram "tonight" (literally "today night" or "today's
night")
DaHjaj po "this morning" (literally "today morning" or "today's
morning")
DaHjaj pov "this afternoon" (literally "today afternoon" or
"today's afternoon")
DaHjaj DungluQ "this noon" (literally "today noon" or "today's
noon")
DaHjaj ramjep "this midnight" (literally "today midnight" or
"today's midnight")
DaHjaj pemjep "this midday" (literally "today midday" or
"today's midday")
(The phrases "this noon," "this midnight," and "this midday" are
a little awkward in English -- we'd probably say "today at
noon," "tonight at midnight," "today in the middle of the day"
or something -- but in Klingon, they fall right into place.)
In Klingon, you could even say DaHjaj pem "today's daytime,"
which would probably be typically contrasted with DaHjaj ram
"today's night" (or "tonight").
wa'leS po "tomorrow morning," cha'leS po "the morning of the day
after tomorrow" (literally "two-days-from-now morning"), and so
on work quite nicely.
Adding -vam "this" to most words designating fixed periods of
time seems to be the only way to indicate "current." Thus the
current year or "this year" is DISvam (referring, of course, to
a Klingon year, or DIS), the current month or "this month" is
jarvam (jar "[Klingon] month"), and the current week or "this
week" is Hoghvam (Hogh "[Klingon] week"). There don't seem to
be special words for "the current year" and so forth comparable
to DaHjaj "the current day" or "today." DaHjaj seems to be
formed of the adverbial DaH "now" plus the noun jaj "day," a
unique type of formation as far as I know. It is perhaps by
analogy to DISvam, jarvam, etc. -- all formed by simply adding a
noun suffix to a noun -- that Klingons also refer to the current
day as jajvam "this day" (jaj "day, period from dawn to dawn").
Though they both can be translated "today," DaHjaj and jajvam
are not quite interchangeable. As the time element in a
sentence, DaHjaj (and not jajvam) is used:
DaHjaj romuluSngan vIHoHpu' "today I killed a Romulan"
(DaHjaj "today," romuluSngan "Romulan," vIHoHpu' "I have killed
him/her")
As the subject of a sentence, on the other hand, jajvam is more
typically found:
nI' jajvam "this day is long"
(nI' "[it] is long [in duration], jajvam "this day")
though DaHjaj is not impossible:
nI' DaHjaj "today is long"
(nI' "[it] is long [in duration], DaHjaj "today")
DaHjaj also behaves as a noun (as opposed to an adverbial
element) in such noun-noun constructions as DaHjaj gheD "today
prey" or "today's prey," a term often heard in Klingon
restaurants with a meaning comparable to "catch of the day."
Phrases such as jajvam po "this day morning" or "this morning"
are not common, but they're not ungrammatical either.
****************************End of Quote
Perhaps no one else gets the sense that {-vetlh} doesn't fit
time from this explanation, but I do believe that at least one
should consider it to be noteably absent from canon. Better
would be to find some event or action relating to "that time"
and use the suffix {-DI'} to point to it, rather than the vague,
wittering and indecisive[1] "at that time", which if anything is
simply redundant, since any time stamp already in context to be
pointed to as "at that time" is still the time context without
"at that time", right?
Whatever the case, I think it bad advice to just shrug it off
and say, "{poHvetlh}? Sure. Looks fine to me."
[1] In a brief dialog long ago on this list, someone asked if
speaking Klingon actually forced one to be rude, suggesting
that it did. The quick and perfect response was, "No. Speaking
terran forces one to be vague, wittering and indecisive."
[Hmm. I seem to be getting carried away. Perhaps I should be
carried away -- to some gentler place. Breathe. Tai Chi moves.
Ohmmmmmmmmm. Ahh. All better now.]
Qov, you are doing a fine job. I guess I'm just feeling a little
over-protective of our amazing new student who happened to show
up while you were off enjoying the holidays.
> }Supvam vIlo'pu'chugh qay' jIH Quch law' jIH Quch puS.
> Hmm. This gets weird.
>
> {Supvam vIlo'pu'chugh} "if I had used this resource" -- qay'be'
> {qay'} - "it is a problem" -- I don't understand why you put it there,
> unless as a parenthetical coment that the upcoming comparative was a
> problem! Maybe you meant to say {vaj} "thus"?
> {jIH Quch law' jIH Quch puS} I accept that you are trying to translate "I
> would be happier" and that you have correctly realized that it is a
> comparative, with an implied, "I would be happier than I would be
> otherwise." Klingon doesn't to our knowledge have a subjunctive and people
> usually wave their hands at this point and point out that Klingons as a
> people aren't terribly concerned with might have beens.
>
> Would you be satisfied that {Supvam vIlo'pu'chugh muQuchmoHpu' De'}
> represents your thought?
I like this. Or, we could use a ghunchu'vian negative and say:
Supvam vIlo'be'pu'mo' Qatlhpu' Qu'wIj.
Instead of referring to what would have been, just describe what
is, allowing the negative to point out that which didn't happen.
If you wish to put a more positive spin on it:
DaH Supvam vItu'ta'mo', jIQuchchoHchu'! vItu'pa' loQ jImogh.
> }OK, I admit that it all falls apart on that last phrase. Can I put suffixes
> }on verbs in that comparative formula?
>
> I'm comfortable with suffixes on the verbs, but not on the {law'} and {puS}
> themselves.
This could prove to be an interesting discussion. So, which
suffixes make you feel comfortable on the verbs of quality? All
of them? Care to show examples of good use of suffixes on verbs
of quality in comparatives?
>
> }vay'mey mughojmoHbejpu'.
> }
> }(Heehee!! I just couldn't resist! That is supposed to read "You have
> }definitely taught me some stuff (somethings)." Interesting stuff, I might
> }add. Mainly though, I just wrote it in hopes of finding out if the Klingon
> }word {vay'} has the same pluralization oddities as the various English
> }translations, or if we can feel it as a regular Klingon noun, just pulling the
> }meaning from the English.
>
> We've never seen {vay'} plural like that. I'd say it was as incorrect as the
> English "somethings." English "something" is translated {vay'}. English
> "some things" is translated {Dochmey}.
Well, {'op Dochmey} perhaps. Anyway, {vay'mey} didn't bother me
as much as {mu-} used as the prefix for "You taught me". Perhaps
you are right. I have not seen {vay'mey}, though it seems to fit
what he wants here: a vaguely identified plural. {vay'} is more
vague in identity than {Doch}. It is an interesting point;
likely an error, but an interesting one.
> }Also, just to make sure: {ghojmoH} is actually
> }listed in the dictionary part of TKD, so if I happened to want to use a type 2
> }verb suffix with it, I should just treat it as an entire word, and NOT order
> }things around the {-moH}? )
>
> Order things around the {-moH}. With the exceptions of {lo'laH} "be
> valuable" and {HeghmoH} "be fatal," verbs in the dictionary section that
> appear to be verb + suffix are believed to be just examples of verb +
> suffix.
It helps to explain that the REASON these are exceptional is
that they are, by definition, adjectives. That means that like
{tIn} where you can say {tIn Duj} or {Duj tIn}, you can also say
{lo'laH Duj} and {Duj lo'laH}, and {HeghmoH tar} and {tar
HeghmoH}. Except for the two words {lo'laH} and {HeghmoH}, no
other verbs can be used adjectivally (following nouns to
describe them) with verb suffixes other than {-qu'}, {-Ha'} and
{-be'}.
Since Okrand wanted to use {lo'laH} as an adjective which uses
{-laH} and {HeghmoH} as an adjective which uses {-moH}, and
these suffixes are not allowed, he had to declare the suffixes
officially part of these words, making {lo'} and {lo'laH}
separate verbs. Similarly, {Hegh} and {HeghmoH} are separate
words.
> {nga'chuq} and {ja'chuq} are nagging me to go in that category too,
> but the suffixes are type 1 so unles we want to fight about {nga'Ha'chuq}
> vs. {nga'chuqHa'} it's moot.
Besides, they are not adjectives, so they don't have this
justification for their exceptional status. Thus, they are
probably not exceptional and the suffixes are just suffixes.
> bIpo'bej, notjISaH. bIchu'ba' 'ach ram. qep'a' wejDIchDaq jIpawDI' jIchu'
> je jIH 'ach bIpo' jatlh Hoch. jIchu' vIneH! 'ach chu'wI' jIH net chaw'Qo'.
> DaH Dochmey law' vIyajbe'taH 'ach tlhIngan HolvaD po'wI' jIH 'e' vIlaj. reH
> jIjatlh TKD DalaDchugh bIpo'choHlaH. ngoDvam Da'ang neH. yIHem 'ej yIghojtaH.
> jumuvta'mo' maQuchqu'.
jIQochbe'chu'.
> Now take that ridiculous "extreme beginner" off your subject line. :)
Yeah, before the less extreme beginners give you new meaning for
the term "extreme", as in "new angles that your major joints can
acquire, particularly, the neck, once wrung."
> Qov [email protected]
> Beginners' Grammarian
charghwI'