tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Mar 08 12:24:46 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: qacheghlu'
You wrote:
Hello Qov,
>At 21:25 98-03-06 -0800, beHwI"av wrote:
>} 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.
maj!
>} {-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.
Hurrah!
>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.
Ahh, so maybe I'd have been best using {-vaD} on the noun
instead of {-Daq}.
*KlI*vaD jIcheghchom
Correct prefix, because KLI is the indirect object? I'm I
correct in assuming that {-vo'}, {-vaD} and {-Daq} all denote indirect
objects? Or could I add {-mo'} too? (I look at the sentence and can't
see if it's he/she/it|none or he/she/it| he/she/it, I'll assume I can
add {-mo'} until you tell me otherwise.)
{-'e'} is a different kettle of fish I don't want to get into
just now.
>} 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.
Ahh, ofcourse. I just couldn't relate to it. Thanks!
>maj. The vague beneficiary can be shown with {-vaD}:
>
>SoHvaD targhlIj vIje'
>
>I'll feed your targ for you.
ghungbe'! (It be not hungry.)
>That's the first time you've TOLD me those words. Quite a different 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:
Not after {-'e'}, I can live with that.
>cha' ben tlhIngan Hol vIghojlI' 'e' vIqagh.
>DaH vIHaDqa'.
majQa'!
>} I tried to compound that second sentance onto the first, but it
>}just looked like a jumble. <crossing my fingers>
>
>It's better as two sentences.
maj!
>} 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.
HIja'
>} 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.
Ok.
>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.
Oh, I was already thinking to far ahead. (My {-wI} is on the
list with noun suffixes at the top, I've put it in the list with verb
suffixes now.)
>} 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."
I thought you were being sarcastic.
>}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'}.
Remembered!
>choqawbe''a'? choqawHa''a'? ram!
>
>I suggest {ram} instead of {pagh}, because I think by {pagh} you mean "it
>doesn't matter," right?
No, I mean "Don't talk rubbish!" or "I don't believe you."
>} "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 know it doesn't mean that, but I wanted to write "What you
say are empty words, they mean nothing!"
>}>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.
Yes, I know that, but when you translate them into English I
see the English words and think; "Well it's wrong in English because
it is missing these qualities. However in Klingon with the rules
aplied it looks perfectly good to me."
What's wrong in one language isn't necessarily wrong in
another.
>}>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.
Don't forget to leave out the things like the, a and an. It's
ust a way of doctoring your sentace the way everybody doctors it...
>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.
My teacher thought I had dyslexia, my father came into school
and asked her how I could muddle my way through at least 4 books a
week...
>} {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}
So the intransive verb can take on an indirect object. Ahh! I
never understood his before. Sure I could translate it tlh->E, but I
didn't understand it the other way around. Thanks.
>{SoHvaD jIQaQ} "I will be good and you will benefit from this."
>}(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 understand it, if what I said above is correct.
>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.
I thought about that, but I was unsure. I couldn't aply it to
other verbs, (Transive verbs I mean.) because it changed the verb
itself.
A different question pops into my head now, can you use the
Type 5 noun suffixes (with the exception {-'e'}, because I'm not going
there) with transive verbs only if you either make the object none or
clearly state a different object? Or can you only use them if their is
no direct object? (I may have figured this out already, but I'm
looking for an example to see whether or not I'm correct.)
>} 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.
So in English the verb "listen" is intransive, but it's not
certain for Klingon. (How do you treat it then, as intransive?)
>Right, but the English translations are what tell us what the Klingon words
>mean, so we can't ignore them.
I'll accept that!
>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.
According to the Oxford Concise dative actually means
"expressing the indirect object or recipient." (It goes on to add
alabout what you just told me about {-vaD}, but not using the Klingon
suffix naturally.)
>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.
Thanks, you've been a great help.
BTW I want to clear up something a lurker wrote to me. I've
not got and never have had a personal agenda to follow against the KLI
or any of it's members, including everybody on the Klingon language
list. I've ust come to learn {tlhIngan Hol}!
>Good posting. bIghojqangqu'law'.
HIja'!
jIghojqangqu'law''a'? jIghojqangqu'ba'!
(I think you could have used {-ba'} instead of {-law'}, but that's
just my opinion.)
ghaytan Heraj waQ qul
SKI:
Likely fire obstructs your course.
--
Qapla'
beHwI"av