tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Aug 29 17:22:12 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: qatlh Qapbe'choH DaH De'wI'mey? :-)
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: qatlh Qapbe'choH DaH De'wI'mey? :-)
- Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 13:30:10 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)
- Priority: NORMAL
On Thu, 26 Aug 1999 22:00:38 +0100 Matt Johnson
<[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Hemey lo'bogh De' DInuD.
> >
> >Interesting. You used the plural suffix to indicate that you are
> >examining the paths and not the data. Clever. I've never seen
> >this done before, but it works for me.
>
> Well, it seemed logical at the time. {Hemey lo'bogh De'} = the routes
> that the data uses; {DInuD} = we examine them.
Notice that {Hemey lo'bogh De'} can either be "the paths that
data uses" or "data that uses the paths". Sometimes this is left
ambiguous, though we have a way of marking the head noun with
the noun suffix {-'e'}. In this case, you didn't have to because
the prefix on the main verb indicated that you wanted a plural
noun for the head noun, and only one of the two available head
noun candidates was plural. That's why it was interesting. I
know it means, "We examined the paths that the data uses".
> I'd have considered, in my lack of knowledge, ?*{Hemey lo'bogh De'
> wInuD} to be wrong... {Hemey lo'bogh} appears redundant if we're only
> examining the data.
It could have meaning if the paths were signficant in
identifying which data we are talking about. If there were other
paths for other data and you wanted to specify only the data
that use these paths, this would make sense and not be redundant.
> >> He ghorpu' wISamta'.
> >
> >Either you are talking about surfaces capable of using language,
> >or you have two main verbs with no established grammar to
> >explain why. I'm guessing that you either omitted {-bogh} on
> >{ghorpu'} or you omitted {'e'} between these two verbs. I'd
> >favor the latter.
>
> Indeed. Even better might be {ghorpu' He 'e' wISamta'}. (We located the
> broken cable.) :)
No. That would be: {He 'ay' ghorlu'pu'bogh wISamta'.} You just
said that you located the fact that the path had broken
(something else?). {ghor} means to break, not to be broken, and
the pronoun {'e'} indicates the entire sentence, not just a noun
from the previous sentence.
> >> latlh He wIlo'moH DaH.
> >
> >Okay, first, this is controversial grammar. I'm comfortable with
> >it, but some others object. We do not have perfect agreement on
> >how to handle {-moH} added to a verb that already had a direct
> >object.
>
> I think I see where the controversy lies. "wIlo'moH" + an explicit
> direct object implies that there's another pronoun around there
> somewhere. The above sentence was intended to say "We caused a new cable
> to be used" (in the absence of a verb 'to replace'), but since the
> passive voice is pretty awkward to express, the 'literal' translation
> comes out as 'We caused it to use a new cable'. The 'it' is the odd
> pronoun.
It is worse than that. What is the word {DaH} doing here? There
is no grammatical justification for it being there, either as a
noun or as an adverb. The sentence is fundamentally broken.
> >That said, if you assume that the person doing the using is the
> >indirect object, and that the thing being done is the direct
> >object and that the one causing the doing is the subject, and
> >you are using the prefix shortcut so you don't use {maHvaD},
> >then the prefix should be {nu-}, not {wI-}.
>
> Maybe {DaHvaD latlh He wIlo'moH} might parse better... this states
> explicitly the indirect object (the benefactor of the action, in this
> case the network/array), and removes the ambiguity of the second
> unstated object in the original sentence. Now, the sentence is "We
> caused the network to use a new cable."
That works, if you accept the same controversial grammar that I
accept. We have one canon example of this being used and many
respectable Klingonists object to it and think it is a mistake.
> Or should it be {DaHvaD He wItammoH} lit. "We caused the cable to be
> exchanged for the benefit of the network." [This strikes me as possibly
> less controversial...]
{tam} means to exchange, not to be exchanged. You can't
arbitrarily reassign the roles of subject and object like that.
Each verb has a natural group of potential subjects and objects.
You have to work with them and not reverse them without some
work.
> Yuck.
>
> (Did any of that ramble make sense, and does it fit into what we know
> already about Klingon grammar? Or am I just plain wrong? :))
Well, you are wrong, but I'm sure you are learning.
> >> DaH'a' De'wI'mey vInaw'. latlh De' vIghajnIS, 'ach pagh lI' vItu'.
> >
> >Again, you have two main verbs with no grammar holding them
> >together. I think you need {'e'} between {lI'} and {vItu'}.
>
> I think I did the same thing as I did earlier. Maybe {... 'ach lI' pagh
> 'e' vItu'} is better.
Much better.
> >> vaj pa'vetlh vInuDqa'. ghumHom vIQoylaH. "SaHbe' DaH! jabbI'IDmey
> >> vIngeHlaHbe'!" jatlh De'wI''a'. jImISqu'. rarwI'mey nuDmeH, De'wI''a'
> >> vIluH. "Daj. De' He tu'lu'be'! nuqDaq 'oH De' He'e'?!" jIjat. rav vInuD.
> >> "Ahhh, pa'Daq De' He' tu'lu'!" jIjatlh...
> >
> >I suspect you are using {pa'} to mean "there" and not the noun
> >"room". You should not then use {-Daq} on it.
>
> Oops. *engraves on memory... inherent locatives do NOT take -Daq*
Well, that's not entirely the case. TKD lists three specific
words that never take {-Daq} and {pa'} meaning "there,
thereabouts" is one of them.
> >> qatlh Qapbe'choH DaH De'wI'mey? chIch De'wI'mey ghorlaH SaymoH'wI'mey.
> >> reH Sengqu' SaymoH'wI'mey! :)
> >
> >tIHoH.
>
> {De' Hemaj Daghorta', DaH monglIj wIghor!}
maj. Of course, that implies that they did it on purpose. Is
that really necessary?
> Sounds like a good exchange. ;-)
> --
> qonwI'
charghwI' 'utlh