tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Jun 17 09:39:31 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC [B. Clawson]
- From: Robyn Stewart <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: KLBC [B. Clawson]
- Date: Wed, 17 Jun 1998 09:31:12 -0700 (PDT)
---B Clawson wrote:
>
> KLBC -
>
> jInIDpu' 'ej jIlujpu'.
bIlujbe'bej! batlh bIqon! SIbI' pupchugh ghItlhlIj bIghojlaHbe'.
> > traps you into copying grammar and vocabulary > > as well as ideas
and
> > meter from the source language, and leads to > > very stilted and
often
> > outright wrong Klingon.
>
> wej tlhIngan HolDaq vIQublaHbe'law'lI'vIS jIH > > jImughnISqu'ba'.
In English we use "in" to mean many things that don't imply physical
location: "in trouble" "in Klingon" "in a while" "in colour" "in
fashion" ... The Klingon suffix {-Daq} should be used only for
physical location or physical motion towards.
Use {vI-} only when there is an implied or stated third person direct
object. I think you mean {jIQub} above, right? A noun with a type 5
suffix other than {'e'} can't be a direct object.
Instructions from Marc Okrand tell us that the suffix {-vIS} must
always be used together witl {-taH}. I know it seems logical that
{-lI'} be used as well, but languages aren't always logical.
{jIQongtaHvIS} "while I was sleeping" {vIHoHtaHvIS} "while I was
killing him" even if my killing was intentional and swiftly completed
according to plan.
When you are writing in Klingon to express your own ideas you use the
language quite powerfully. I do remember the feeling of having
carefully composed and rechecked sentences in Klingon and having
someone find fault with every one. The BG may seem to overstate a
simple point of correction, and I apologize for the times when I
insult someone's intelligence this way. I'm just aware that there are
other people reading the same post who might need to hear the whole
story.
> nuq SuHar?
chaq bImughnIS, 'ach bImughnISchugh vaj qechmeylIj'e' tImugh. bom'e'
neH tImughQo'.
bommey mugh neHlaw' Hoch. HoSghajmo' 'ej Dunba'mo' Hol, SIbI'
HoSvetlh much neH chu'wI'.
> > Someone has already told you about {tlhaq}.
> > Never assume vocabulary
> > isn't there. We have a very ecclectic lexicon.
>
> Sure, but I usually give up after four tries or so with > synonyms.
> Clock? No. Watch? No. Timer? No. Hmmm, > must not be a word.
> Haven't memorized all 3,000 quite yet.
I forgot that it was only under "chronometer." I guess that isn't
the first thing I would think of, either.
There are only about 2000 to memorize, though. :)
> > Try:
> > Qov is confused because my sentence is long.
> > Qov is confused because of my sentence.
> nI'mo' mu'tlheghwIj mIS Qov.
> mu'tlheghwIjmo' mIS Qov.
majQa'. I might quibble that a written sentence is long in physical
length (tIq) not long in time (nI'), but I can accept an argument for
{nI'}.
To easy, eh? These may be too hard, but give them a try:
---
I have to translate boring sentences in order to make that crazy woman
happy.
Before I can translate "War and Peace" I must know all the grammar
perfectly.
A week ago I was believed to be a complete newbie.
In a year I will speak Klingon fluently and write beautiful poetry.
---
A suggestion:
Rather than working from an English text and hunting for Klingon
grammar and vocabulary to match it, practise by starting from a point
of Klingon grammar, and writing Klingon sentences that illustrate yout
ability to use that point of grammar.
P.S. If you would give your postings a subject name as well as the
letters KLBC it would be easier for me to follow the threads.
_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com