tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Mar 07 10:33:27 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: qacheghlu'
- From: Qov <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: qacheghlu'
- Date: Sat, 07 Mar 1998 10:31:31 -0800
At 21:25 98-03-06 -0800, beHwI"av 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.)
Except for the misspelling of {tlhIngan} this is a very good sentence. You
have used the prefix {vI-} correctly and your word order is right: adverb,
then object, then verb. majQa'. ANd now I know just what you were saying.
}>}>}*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?
No it wasn't wrong, but it didn't address the problem that I had pointed out
with the sentence: that you were using the verb incorrectly. You have to
match the meanings of the verbs exactly to the desired meanings.
Additionally, when a verb already implies a change of motion or state, for
example {moj} (become), {chegh} return, {choH} (change), and lots of others,
{choH} carries the idea of "begin to". A change to the state of change.
{chungchoH} would be "begin to accelerate," or "change the rate of
acceleration." I think in your case {qachegh} was mostly a prefix error
that you didn't recognize. {qacheghchoH} would mean "I begin to return you"
You might say it if you were giving someone a tour and you got to the end of
the route and were turning around to take them home again.
}>To say "I return to the KLI" (as a physical 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.)
You return, and the KLI is the beneficiary, meaning that we receive some
result, not necesarily good, of that action. Let me go over indirect
objects quickly.
You know that the direct object of a verb is the one that the action of the
verb actually happens to. There is sometimes another person of thing
affected by the verbal action but not directly acted on.
I baked my mom a cake.
subject: I, object: (the thing that actually got baked) a cake,
ind. obj.: my mom
She threw him the ball.
subject: She, object: (the thing that actually got returned) the ball
indirect object: him
He showed me a talking bird.
You do this one.
}>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.
maj. The vague beneficiary can be shown with {-vaD}:
SoHvaD targhlIj vIje'
I'll feed your targ for you.
}>} 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:
That's the first time you've TOLD me those words. Quite a differnt meaning.
} tlhIngan Hol vIghojlI' 'e' vIqaghpu'.
} DaH tlhIngan Hol vIHaDqa'.
majQa'. Quite an improvement. Showing that one action was finished before
another began *IS* a time to use the perfective, but there's a rule that
says that no type 7 suffix (like {-pu'} can be used on the verb following
{'e'}, so the {qaghpu'} can't stay there. You can still get the timing of
the events across with something like:
cha' ben tlhIngan Hol vIghojlI' 'e' vIqagh.
DaH vIHaDqa'.
Two years ago I interupted my progress towards learning Klingon.
Now I'm resuming my studies.
}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>
It's better as two sentences.
}>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.
maj. mIwvetlh vIchup.
}>}>}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.
No, stand straight and don't do things you should know better about and Ill
not have to use the painstick.
}>}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>
The verb affixes used on a noun were {qa-} and {-ta'} on {'urmang}. It
happens that {-wI'} is both a verb suffix AND a noun suffix, with completely
different meanings. You were ok there, except that there was a clearer
word, {yab} already in existence.
}>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'}!)
You may only use imperative prefixes for commands, and I was. The command
was: "Use your brain!"
}>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...)
Careful. {qab} is bad not good.
"You're certianly bad when you don't use your brain."
}>}>}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!
Punctuation is nice. So is grammar.
For a question in English it is merely necessary to add a question mark or a
bit of inflection. In Klingon you need the interogative suffix {-'a'}.
choqawbe''a'? choqawHa''a'? ram!
I suggest {ram} instead of {pagh}, because I think by {pagh} you mean "it
doesn't matter," right?
} 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.
Nope. In Klingon it had to be a statement. And the way you used prefixes
and word order in that post, I couldn't guess what the subjects and objects
were supposed to be.
}>"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!")
Ah, then: {yIDoghQo'}. "Nothing" in English doesn't mean "don't give me
that" to me. It may be regional slang.
}>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.
tlhIngan Hol HAS rules, and you must use them.
}>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.
maj. When you see me translate something from your Klingon into imperfect
English, go back and look at the Klingon, and the rules in TKD that govern
it, to find the error in your Klingon that the ungrammatical English
translation reflects.
}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...
Good. This means that when you fail to see what is written in front of you
I can yell at you mercilessly and make no concessions for ESL or dyslexia.
}>}>}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.
maj.
} {qaghuHmoH} - I warn you {ghuHmoH} - warn
}
}It's my warning and I shouted it to you.
maj.
} {qaQaQ} - I am good to you {QaQ} - be good
}
}It's my goodness and I point it to you.
AHA! We have the root of your misconceptin and can weed it out! This is
wrong and I will now attempt to explain why.
} In what sense could you use [{QaQ} - be good] as a verb with
}an object?
Very good question. You cannot use {QaQ} with an object. It is what is
known as an "intransitive" verb, so it doesn't take an object. So any
prefix other than jI-, bI-, ma-, Su- or nothing is wrong. In English "good"
doesn't take an object either. You never good someone. You can be good for
someone's benefit, however, and ...
}How would you express "to"?
This is where you use {-vaD}
{SoHvaD jIQaQ} "I will be good and you will benefit from this."
I didn't say "I will be good for you" or "I will be good to you" because
these both have idiomatic meanings in English, the first implies "I will
improve you" and the second "I will be kind to you" and the Klingon doesn't
have these implications.
Contrast:
{SoHvaD jIvut} "I will cook/prepare food for you."
{qavut} "I will cook you/prepare you as food."
} In English this verb automatically has "to be" otherwise I
}couldn't say [{jIQaQ} - I am good or I do good]
jIQaQ ONLY means "I am good" not "I do good." The second is a completely
different concept.
}(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!
I may have lost you, but no I know where you *are* and I can show you the
way out.
I'll tell you where the "don't" comes from. This is about English, not
about Klingon, but as everyone discovers, you have to learn more about your
own language to study a new one. We have to go back into the history of
English for this.
"I love you." vs. "I do love you."
There isn't much differnce in these sentences now. One is just an emphatic.
Once upon a time the "do" in English was more than just an emphasis, it
marked a different verb tense, with a different interrogative and different
negative.
Thus:
"I love you not." vs. "I don't love you."
"Love you me?" vs. "Do you love me?"
Although the ones on the left are probably familiar from old poetry - that's
why I picked the verb "love" for the example - you will recognize them as
archaic. The forms with "do" have become the standard. The two verb tenses
have crossed over and combined into one.
The reason there is a "don't" in the English translation of {qaghImbe'} "I
don't exile you" is that English introduces the word "don't" for the
negative, not bcause of some quality of Klingon. If you want to follow
where the word "do" comes from, think of {QaQ} as meaning "do be good" - as
in "I do be good." Definitely NOT "I do good." Glad to have that cleared
up. A long explanation, but maybe it helped a few lurkers, too.
} To get to my true question why is the verb {QaQ} different
}from the verb {ghIm}? (In Klingon not in English!)
In Klingon and English, the difference is that {ghIm} and "exile" can have a
direct object, the person who is exiled, while {QaQ} and "good" can't have a
direct object, they are "stative" verbs, expressing a condition. You'll
come up against this question of objects again, and in some cases we aren't
exactly sure what the object of a Klingon verb can be, but it's pretty clear
in this case. The way the translations are given in the dictionary
indicates what object the verb can take. For example, most people consider
that {'Ij} cannot take a direct object, because it is translated as
"listen", not "listen to." In English we don't "listen a song" so in
Klingon we probably can't *{bom 'Ij}. This is all part of what I was saying
earlier about paying close attention to the exact meaning of the verb.
}>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.
Right, but the English translations are what tell us what the Klingon words
mean, so we can't ignore them.
}>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.
} I understand English Dutch and German Subjects and Objects
}it's remembering that it's not OSV that is my problem.
If you speak German then indirect objects should be no problem. Simply
think of the sentence in German. If the noun would take the accusative
case, it is a direct object. If it would take the dative case it is
probably the indirect object. There will be many exceptions to this,
because of funky German verbs and funky Klingon situations, but it is a good
rule of thumb to get you on the right track. And if you have trouble knowing
when to use dative and accusative in German, this will help you there.
Good posting. bIghojqangqu'law'.
Qov [email protected]
Beginners' Grammarian