tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Mar 06 21:12:49 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: qacheghlu'
You wrote:
Hello Qov,
>{yap} is *be* enough. {yap} is NOT *have* enough. So you may NOT use it in
>this sentence. You could probably say {mupuQmoH tlhIngan Hol} "I was fed up
>of Klingon" - literally "Klingon made me fed up."
But that wasn't the case, doing it wrong made me angery so I
stopped Klingon. Klingon didn't make mae fed up. Could I say; "my
enjoyment was gone"?
pay' tlhIngon Hol vItIvbe' (Suddenly I didn't enjoy Klingon.)
>To say "I am that Klingon," use the type 4 noun suffix on tlhIngan to make
>it into "that Klingon." {tlhInganvetlh jIH}.
OK, got it.
>}>BG jIHmo' HollIj Huj vIlISnIS ...
>}
>} bISagh! (c;
>
>bISaghbej 'ej bISaghchugh chaq vay' Daghoj.
chaq?
>}>}*KlI* qachegh.
>}>
>}>{chegh} is "return" not "return to" so {qachegh} means "I return you."
>}
>} Would {qacheghchoH} be better. Or should I add the locative
>}{-Daq}, because it's my destination...
>
>I struggle to find any way that you could possibly conclude that
>{qacheghchoH} could be better. What was your logic here? It may help me
>help you understand.
{-choH} - change in state/direction [ As I was nolonger
traveling away I was traveling towards the KLI, there fore the {-Daq}
and the {-choH}. I assumed the second example under 4.2.3 was a
physical change of direction... Was that wrong?
>To say "I return to the KLI" (as a phsical location),
>say: {*KLI*Daq jIchegh} Note the prefix is first person no object. You
>aren't returning something, you are just returning. Also consider {*KLI*vaD
>jIchegh}.
Mmm, I would if I could grasp the consept of the indirect
object. To me the KLI exists only as an idea, but it exists IRL too.
What reason would there be to use {-vaD}? (I'm sorry I just don't
understand the consept.)
>Only use verb prefixes to identify the real grammatical subject and object
>of the verb. Don't try to use them to indicate a vague beneficiary of the
>action. For example, "I feed your targ" is {targhlIj vIje'} not *{targhlIj
>qaje'}, even though the owner of the targ does benefit from his pet being
>fed. Understand?
Yes.
>} I selected the last choice Qov; "I've uninterrupted ... " I
>}thought {-Ha'} was to undo something, in other words something like
>}"To undo the interruption ... "
>
>NO. It is still wrong. You did not select the last choice. You wrote
>something entirely different and uninterpretable. There is a Klingon proverb
>for you. {QaghmeylIj tIchID, yIyoH}. Study it well. After two days of
>looking at this sentence, and reading your muddy justification I have
>another guess at what you were trying to say, perhaps it was "I now resume
>my studies of Klingon." That would be:
>
>tlhIngan Hol vIHaDqa'.
Fair enough, but those are not my words their yours. My words
are: "I have stopped doing everything else besides from learning the
Klingon language." How would I say that? Can I say:
tlhIngan Hol vIghojlI' 'e' vIqaghpu'.
DaH tlhIngan Hol vIHaDqa'.
I interupted learning Klingon.
Now I'm studing Klingon again.
I tried to comound that second sentance onto the first, but it
just looked like a jumble. <crossing my fingers>
>That is a clear and understandable statement. Read about the type 3 verb
>suffix {-qa'} in section 4.2.3. Always look up suffixes in the text, not in
>the tables at the back. The information in the tables at the back is not
>sufficient.
I don't just look there! I look at the examples and see if I
can compair the way the examples use the words and how I use the
words.
>}>}ghe'torDaq qa'urmangta'.
>}>
>}>{'urmang} is a noun, so verb prefixes and suffixes make no sense on it. Try
>}>{ghe'torDaq qamaghta'} - "I have betrayed you in the underworld." That what
>}>you meant?
>}
>
>}(Yes! I'm not bad, because I use my rememberer [memory/brain]) Looks
>}painful doesn't it, you should try saying it. (c;
>
>beHwI"av, it IS bad. You want to know about pain? Putting verb suffixes on a
>noun is a painstikable offense. This is your one warning.
I'm bending over already for my punishment.
>}HIja'! jIqabne', jIlo'mo' qawwI'.
I just saw it, don't you mean noun suffix on a verb. {qaw} is
a verb and {-wI'} is a noun suffix. (Or have I missed something?)
<painsticks himself>
>Typo: {jIqabbe'}
>
>Remember OVS word order, and use the existing vocabulary. Brain, as an
>organ of thinking is {yab}. You should say: {jIqabbe' yabwIj vIlo'mo'} or
>the other way around (which charghwI' rants about if I don't mention,
>because he believes it's the only correct way) {yabwIj vIlo'mo' jIqabbe'}.
>Note that the prefix must reflect the object of the verb. yablIj yIlo'.
I thought you could use imperitive prefixes for commands only.
(Or were you issuing one? If so, {HIja'}!)
>yablIj Dalo'be'DI' bIqabbej.
Undoubtedly you'll be good as soon as you use not your
brain... Ahh... Thank you, you're so kind. (I'd painstick you, but
you'd probably like it...)
>}>}choqawbe' choqawHa' pagh.
>}>
>}>"You don't remember me you misremember me nothing."
>}
>} Hurrah, it's correct!
>
>NO! It is as nonsensical as the English.
You had no idea what it could mean? How about if I put in the
fully correct punctuation...
choqawbe'? choqawHa'? pagh!
I wasn't handing out commands so I though that it would be
obvious that "You don't remember me" couldn't be said in any other way
than as a question to make sense. (Unless it's a command and I didn't
use and imperatives so I assumed it would have to be a question is
Klingon as well as English.
>"You don't remember me you
>misremember me nothing." makes no sense in English and {choqawbe' choqawHa'
>pagh} makes no sense in Klingon. beHwI"av, try to realize that Klingon has
>rules of grammar. It isn't sufficient to get somewhere near the meaning
>with an ungrammatical straing. You have to find words that actually express
>your meaning in a grammatical way. Else you have, as you do above, garbage.
>I don't even know what it is supposed to mean! Tell me in grammatical
>English what you intended to say here and we'll work on getting it in Klingon.
"You don't remember me? You misremember me? Nothing!"
("Nothing" as in "Don't give me that nonsense!")
>I have been trying to demonstrate your errors to you by simply translating
>them into the same errors in English, but you don't seem to be recognizing
>the problems.
No I don't, because one is English and the other is tlhIngan
Hol. The rules for both are different, you aply rules for English to
comensate for the lack of rules in tlhIngan Hol.
>If you have a language problem that isn't obvious from your
>written English, let me know what the problem is and I will try to
>accommodate you.
Yes, it's called tlhIngan Hol, my English is almost perfect.
That come from being British and exclusively writing it, even though I
can speak, read and write at least 3 others. (Infact my translating
ability from English to Dutch is so good that I once read an English
version of Plato's Democracy (not sure about the name of the text)
outloud and say the words in Dutch with little or no mistakes in front
of the class. Only the first chapter, mind you.) I have NO problems
with the languages I speak, read or write... besides from Klingon...
>}>}ghojwI' qaQaQbe'!
>}>
>}>"Learner, I won't good you!"
>}>
>}>qech'e' 'oSbogh mu'tlheghvam vIyajchu'be', 'ach ghaytan teH.
>}
>} I think I meant; {qaQaQbe' ghojwI'!}, and if I take your
>}answer and my thoughts I get very worried.
>} I wanted to use {-Ha'}, basically because I like that suffix
>}more than {-be'}, but I had and idea that I couldn't undo good... (c;
>
>What is it supposed to MEAN? {qaQaQbe'} makes absolutely no sense. {QaQ}
>means "be good." {qa-} means "I <verb> you". "I don't good you" is
>meaningless.
{qaghIm} - I exile you {ghIm} - exile
The exile is yours, and I did it to you.
{qaghuHmoH} - I warn you {ghuHmoH} - warn
It's my warning and I shouted it to you.
{qaQaQ} - I am good to you {QaQ} - be good
It's my goodness and I point it to you.
In what sense could you use [{QaQ} - be good] as a verb with
an object? How would you express "to"?
In English this verb automatically has "to be" otherwise I
couldn't say [{jIQaQ} - I am good or I do good] (Where else would you
get the don't from in the sentance above?) I can't say {qaQaQ}, but I
can say {jIQaQ}? You've lost me here!
To get to my true question why is the verb {QaQ} different
from the verb {ghIm}? (In Klingon not in English!)
>You can't choose your syllables in Klingon on the basis of sound. You must
>choose them by meaning. And I can't help you fix this unless you tell me
>what it was supposed to mean.
I didn't, I based it on Klingon and not on English as you did
in this case. English comon usage is not a basis for Klingon, you told
me that.
>}>}SKI:
>}>}beHwI"av says he's back from the dead. (c;}}}
>}>
>}>bIHeghbe'law'pu' 'ach Heghlaw'lI' HollIj.
>}
>} choDuQpu'Ha'!
>
>The suffix {-Ha'} always goes directly after the verb. Do you really mean
>to say {choDuQHa'pu'} "You have mis-stabbed me"?
I know, I got mixed up.
>Good. Here is the beginning I want you to start at. Read chapter 4, up to
>the end of 4.1.3. Copy out the table on page 33. You'll have to memorize
>it before you can speak Klingon, so start now. If you have any questions on
>the verb prefixes or how to use them, post the questions. If you understand
>the verb prefixes completely, then write ten sentences, simple sentences
>with only one verb, and a subject and object. Each of the sentences should
>correctly use a different verb prefix. Include one with {qa-}. Translate
>each of your sentences into English. State whether the word "you" is
>singular or plural in each case. If your sentences are not all correct,
>with no subject-object reversal and no prefix errors, I warn you, you'll
>have to do ten more. So if you have any question about prefixes, ask first,
>and then check them carefully.
>
>} A word of warning I get my Objects and Subjects mixed up all
>}the time. I start practicing that and I'll put KLBC back into the
>}subject line from now on!
>
>That word of warning is for you. You mess up an OVS, you messed up. No
>disclaimers, passes or coupons accepted.
OK.
I understand English Dutch and German Subjects and Objects
it's remembering that it's not OSV that is my problem.
ghaytan Heraj waQ qul
SKI:
Likely fire obstructs your course.
--
Qapla'
beHwI"av