tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Mar 08 23:04:49 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: qacheghlu'
- From: Qov <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: qacheghlu'
- Date: Sun, 08 Mar 1998 23:02:56 -0800
At 12:41 98-03-08 -0800, beHwI"av wrote:
}Hello Qov,
}>At 21:25 98-03-06 -0800, beHwI"av wrote:
}>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
{-choH} not {-chom}. Do you mean to say that you begin to return? Why did
you not say simply {jIchegh}?
} Correct prefix, because KLI is the indirect object?
Correct prefix because there is no direct object of the verb.
}I'm I
}correct in assuming that {-vo'}, {-vaD} and {-Daq} all denote indirect
}objects?
No. {-vaD} denotes an indirect object. The other type 5 noun suffixes have
differnt meanings. {-vo'} and {-Daq} are prepositional concepts. Read
about them in the relevant sections in the Nouns chapter.
}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.)
If the action of the main verb takes place because of something, then you
can use {-mo'}.
tajmo' jIchegh.
"I returned because of the knife."
Look at the meanings of the suffixes and use them appropriately.
} {-'e'} is a different kettle of fish I don't want to get into
}just now.
The straightforward meaning of {-'e'} is just an emphatic. Simpler than the
others.
}>} 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.
Incorrect. Not after the word {'e'}. The noun suffix {-'e'} is quite
unrelated.
}>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!"
In Klingon, always write what you mean.
}>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."
With practice you will learn to distinguish.
}>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...
Not true. {targh} means any of "a targ" "the targ" "targ" and "targs." I
will translate it as whichever is appropriate for the sentence. Don't think
e're doctoring sentences. Every preposition matters to the meaning.
}>} {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.
Grammatically I don't believe it is technically an indirect object. But it
is a valid use of {-vaD}. Read section 3.3.5.
} 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.)
You'd have to give me an example for me to figure out what you are saying here.
}>} 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?)
In English the verb "listen" by itself is intransitive, but "listen to" is
transitive. I personally treat {'Ij} as intransitive.
}jIghojqangqu'law''a'? jIghojqangqu'ba'!
jIHoj.
Qov [email protected]
Beginners' Grammarian