tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Aug 23 13:42:42 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: reH Su'ba'pa' quS yInuD. / KLBC
- From: "Andeen, Eric" <[email protected]>
- Subject: RE: reH Su'ba'pa' quS yInuD. / KLBC
- Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1999 13:41:54 -0700
jatlh pIl'o':
> qen jItaHvIS qaSchoHlu'pu'.
<jItaHvIS> ??!? ghaytan bong wot Danop.
> HIq vIjabtaHvIS yopwaHHom runqu' vItuQtaH.
<run> is described as "be short (in stature)", so it apply to people,
animals, most likely trees and buildings, but probably not things like
pants.
> machchu'qu' yopwaHHomvam'e'.
vIqelDI' jImon. bIDojba'. jIyepnIS - one small typo (-be' instead of -ba'),
which I made but soon corrected, could have been very bad here. qatIch
vIneHbe'ba'. bIHopbe'chugh ghaytan choHoH!
> quSDaq HIq Humqu' lIchchoHlu'pu' 'e' vISovbe'.
lIchlu'lI''a' qaStaHvIS wanI' DaDelbogh? If not, then it's probably better
to say just <lIchlu'pu'>. The <-choH> means that the <HIq Humqu'> had
*begun* to pour, and implies that it may well be still pouring.
> quSvetlhDaq vIba'ta'.
<jIba'ta'>.
> pay' vIHotchoHchu'. 'uptaH ghu'. jIQeH. jImogh.
va.
> tuQmoHvaD pa'Daq vItuQHa'moHtaHvIS jIHoj.
<tuQmoHvaD> doesn't work. I think you meant <tuQmoHmeH>.
Also, <tuQ> is a rather strange word. Using it effectively can require some
strangeness involving <-'egh> and <-moH>. Making it even more complicated is
the definition of <tuQHa'moH> and even worse <tuQmoH> in TKD. Just plain
<tuQ> is easy: <yopwaH vItuQ> - "I am wearing pants".
The hard part comes when you want to put on those pants. Based on the
definition of <tuQmoH> in TKD, this would probably be <yopwaH vItuQmoH>.
Unfortunately, this goes against the way it should work. Based on everything
we know about <-moH>, <yopwaH vItuQmoH> should mean "I cause the pants to
wear (clothes)", which makes no sense. The object of <tuQmoH> should be
someone else, as in <DuSaQ ghoSpa' puqwI' vItuQnISmoH> - "I have to dress my
child before school". If you turn your head sideways and pound it into the
wall a few times, you can make the definitions in TKD for <tuQHa'moH> and
<tuQmoH> agree with this way of doing things. So which is it - is <tuQmoH>
another weird example like <lo'laH> or are the definitions in TKD just . . .
poorly phrased? I don't know, but I suspect it is the latter.
For putting clothes on yourself, you can clearly say <jItuQ'eghmoH>. For
putting on a specific article of clothing, like the aforementioned pants,
you can't really say it easily using the grammar we know about. *ALERT* -
the following is controversial grammar, and should not be taken as
authoratative - *ALERT*. I strongly suspect, however, that you can say
<yopwaH vItuQ'eghmoH> without a problem.
Getting back to your original sentence, it would probably go like this:
tuQ'eghmoHmeH pa'Daq vItuQHa''eghmoHtaHvIS jIHoj.
> Say'law'taH yopwaH HomwIj 'e' vItu'.
maj. Careful about the spaces in <yopwaHHomwIj>, though.
> puchpa'Daq jISay''eghchoHmoHlI'.
maj.
> 'ach DIrwIj vISay'laHbe'chu'.
<vISay'moHlaHbe'chu'>.
> *soap vIlo'pu' 'ej *detergent vIlo'pu'
> 'ej *isopropyl vIlo'pu'.
> 'ach loQ 'o'wIj ('o' ngechwIj?) Humlaw'taw'.
The verb <Humlaw'taH> should go before the subject. And <'o' ngechwIj> is
very descriptive and works well. 'ach DaH tlhIngan Hol laDlaHbe'mo'
be'nalwI' jIbel :)
> DIrwIjvo' Qopchu'meH pughHom Hum 'ej vIloSnISta'.
I assume you meant <'e' vIloSnIS>. Also, the <-ta'> doesn't make sense,
unless you meant <-ba'>.
pagh
Beginners' Grammarian
tlhIngan Hol Mailing List FAQ
http://www.bigfoot.com/~dspeers/klingon/faq.htm