tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Dec 10 14:30:39 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: KLBC: Hol vI'lo 'e' vInID (vagh)
- From: "Andeen, Eric" <[email protected]>
- Subject: RE: KLBC: Hol vI'lo 'e' vInID (vagh)
- Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 15:31:45 -0700
jatlh tuv'el:
> KLBC: Hol vI'lo 'e' vInID (vagh)
>
> jeDbe'ba' qettlhupqoqra'.
> Your so-called sauce is obviously not thick.
> (How would I say, 'not thick enough'?
> I couldn't figure it out.)
jatlhlaH'a' qettlhupqoqlIj? <-raj> yIlo'.
Enough for what? In English, we throw the word "enough" around a lot, but we
often don't ask or know the answer to that question. If you can't answer it,
think again about what you really mean. If you can, use that answer to be
more precise. For example:
jeDbe'ba' qettlhupqoqraj. Ha'DIbaH tlhorghmoHchu'be'.
jeDbe'ba' qettlhupqoqraj. muyonmoHbe'.
jeDbe'ba' qettlhupqoqraj. QIv.
> Hoch Hutlhlaw' vaj chanDoq jeDHa' 'oHlaH neH.
> It lacks everything, so it can only be a thin marinade.
I'd like to point out a little style note here. Often when you use <vaj> as
a conjunction like this, it would probably be a little better Klingon style
to drop the <vaj> and make the first clause into a <-mo'> clause:
Hoch Hutlhlaw'mo' chanDoq jeDHa' 'oHlaH neH.
There's nothing wrong with using <vaj> instead, but be aware of the <-mo'>
option, and decide which sounds better.
I'm also not exactly sure what you mean when you say <Hoch Hutlhlaw'>. It's
grammatically fine, but I am having a hard time interpreting it.
> chemuvqangbe'chugh rejoy'vIpbe'ba'.
> We are not afraid to torture you if you won't join us.
maj. Nice use of prefixes and suffixes. <re-> and <che-> are very underused.
It's nice to see them get some recognition.
> wItIvchu'!
> We'd really enjoy it!
maj.
> nIHbogh qama' Sutra' vItu'ta'!
> I've found your clothing that the prisoner stole!
<Sutraj> (note the possessive suffix) is the object of <nIH>, so it needs to
go before the <nIH>. Also, since this creates an ambiguous relative clause
(did you find the prisoner or the clothes), you can put a topic marker
(-'e') on the head noun:
Sutraj'e' nIHbogh qama' vItu'ta'!
Also a vocabulary note: <Sam> would be better than <tu'> here. Look up the
definition and I think you will agree.
> qama'ra' ghaH, qar'a'?
> He was your prisoner, right?
maj.
> tlhIch tu'lu'chugh qul tu'lu' je.
> Where there is smoke, there is also fire.
maj.
pagh
Beginners' Grammarian
tlhIngan Hol Mailing List FAQ
http://www.bigfoot.com/~dspeers/klingon/faq.htm