tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Nov 15 00:17:34 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: hi
- From: "Andeen, Eric" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: KLBC: hi
- Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1998 00:25:12 -0700
- Importance: Normal
lab Philip:
>> > ben puS tlhIngan Hol mu'ghom vIje' 'ach wej Hol vIghojta'.
>>
>> DaghojchoHbej. DaghojtaHvIS, not Daghojta' 'e' Datu'.
>> We are all still learning, and will never be finished learning.
> I'm having a bit of a problem with your second Klingon phrase
> above. I think you're saying something like,
> "While you are learning it, notice that it's never you have
> learned it."
> But I could only translate as,
> "While you are learning it, notice that you have never learned
> it."
Your translation is almost correct. The tricky thing here is the way I used
the <-ta'> suffix. It's tempting to just treat <-pu'> and <-ta'> as meaning
simple past tense, but that is not what they are. Both <-pu'> and <-ta'>
mean that the action of the verb is completed in the time context of the
sentence, with <-ta'> giving the added meaning that the action of the verb
was a goal that the subject had intentionally set out to accomplish. So what
I really said then was that you will never be *done* learning. I think
you'll find this applies to most of life, not just Klingon.
> I know part of my misunderstanding, and that is exactly how to handle
<not> in a
> phrase using <'e'>. Let me introduce a precise syntax where x(y) means x
refers
> to y or x is applied to y. Which of the following correctly captures <not
> Daghojta' 'e' Datu'> ?:
> a) Datu' (not (Daghojta'))
> b) not (Datu' (Daghojta'))
> Or is it the case that the phrase expresses both (a) and (b) depending on
> context? If not, then if the phrase expresses (a), how does one express
(b),
> and vice versa?
Adverbials like <not> in setnences with <'e'> can be tough at first. The
easiest way to explain it is to remind you that a sentence with <'e'> (or
<net>) is really *two* sentences. There is the first sentence, and the <'e'
...> part is a sentence of its own, with <'e'> as the object of the second
verb. Once you realize that, you should have less trouble with adverbial
placement.
If you want to apply the adverbial to the first sentence, put it at the
beginning of the first sentence, as you would expect. If you want to apply
it to the *second* sentence, you need to put it at the beginning of the
second sentence, or right before the <'e'>. Of course, just to make things
complicated, the adverbial can go *after* the object of a sentence if that
object is a noun with the <-'e'> suffix, or the pronoun <'e'>. Coincidence?
You decide.
Using your syntax, here's how it works:
<not Daghojta' 'e' Datu'> is: Datu' (not (Daghojta'))
<Daghojta' not 'e' Datu'> is: not (Datu' (Daghojta'))
<Daghojta' 'e' not Datu'> - same as above.
> -- pong ghajbe'bogh ghaH
pong ghajbejbogh pagh'e'