tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Jul 27 23:06:17 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC - Qu'vatlh! qep'a'Daq jIjaH vIneH!
- From: Robyn Stewart <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: KLBC - Qu'vatlh! qep'a'Daq jIjaH vIneH!
- Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1998 23:08:26 -0700 (PDT)
jatlh tu'vel pach puqloD
> ja' Qov
> > tlhoS 'ach qagh DaHevbe'.
>
> "Almost, but you don't receive qagh" Almost, but no cigar?!jIHagh,
> "mua-ha-ha-ha"
qIDwIj Dayaj. rut jIDogh.
> DarSeq 'ar Daghaj? "How many darseks do you have?"
> qevaS 'ar DachIl? "How many kevas did you lose?"
> mu'tlhegh 'ar vIqonnIS? "How many sentences do I need to write?"
maj. DaH ghaytan Daqaw.
> > > jIHegh 'e' vItaH.
> >
> > /taH/ doesn't take an object. If you want to say "I go on dying"
> > simply say /jIHeghtaH/ or /jIHeghlI'/. (At this point I suspect you
> > mean /Hagh/ not /Hegh/ but that's between you and your dictionary).
> >
>
> Yes, I meant /Hagh/ "laugh" not /Hegh/ "die." This brings up a good
> question.
It's a number of rather classic questions.
> Why can't /taH/ take an object?
/taH/ is known to mean "continue, go on, endure." The canonical
example is /taH pagh taHbe'/ from the dinner scene in STIV. Its
subject is the thing that continues.
> /jIHagh 'e' vItaH/ "I laugh, I
> continue it."
This would be /vItaHmoH/ - I cause it to continue, I continue it.
> I agree that /jIHaghtaH/ is better, but is the other
> wrong?
We can't be certain it's wrong, stranger things have happened in
Klingon and other languages, but it would be irregular. In general in
Klingon the verb for doing something yourself (e.g. /vem/ = wake) is
different from the verb for causing it in someone/thing else (e.g.
/vemmoH/= wake [someone]).
> How do we know for sure which verbs don't take objects, or must
> take an object?
We know for sure from canon. There are some verbs that are both
transitive and intransitive, /mev/ and /tagh/ come to mind. For a
while we didn't know whether /ghor/ was what the object that broke
did, or what the subject that broke it did. Then we got, /pIpyuS pach
DaSop DaneHchugh pIpyuS puS DaghornIS/ Not */DaghornISmoH/. We don't
really know what the object of many Klingon verbs should be, and there
are many threads on the issue. Usually when a word can be
misinterpreted synonyms are given to indicate which English meaning a
Klingon word translates. People who don't see why this is significant
should read the FAQ section on transitivity.
> Didn't I see someone say something like /qajatlh/
> recently? "I speak you," doesn't make sense, so is this a verb that
> shouldn't take an object?
The object of /jatlh/ can be the addressee or the thing (SoQ, Hol,
mu'mey ...) spoken. The object of /ja'/ seems to be exclusively the
addressee. There's a lovely post on this I could show you, but I'm
much too lazy today to look for it.
Bug me about it when I seem more lively, if I haven't yet succeeded in
bending you to my will. I'm simply tired. I'll poke at your story
and go to bed:
> mIychuqtaH
Not sure that you can 'brag each other'. Might work, might not.
> maSaq." yay'ba' romuluSngan tera'ngan je 'ach taH verengan,
> "machavlaHbe'
wIchavlaHbe' from your translation.
==
Qov - Beginners' Grammarian
_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com