tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Dec 12 19:57:40 1999

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: KLBC: A construction that seems...unusual.

In a message dated 99-12-10 19:39:45 EST, you write:

<< jalth juDmoS:
 > I wanted to check and see if there were major 
 > flaws in this dialogue:
 You're using the <-ta'> apsect suffix on just about every verb. This doesn't
 really make sense. <-pu'> and <-ta'> do *NOT* indicate simple past tense;
 they indicate that the action is complete. I don't think that is the case in
 any of your sentences. Drop the <-ta'>mey.
 > ' wa'Hu' chuSqu'moH nuq ? ' tlhobta' qama'.
 Two minor problems here. First, <tlhob> is not a verb of speaking. You have
 to use <jatlh> or <ja'>: <tlhob qama'. jatlh ' ... '>. there is no need to differentiate between a statement and a 
question. The fact that what he said contains a question word is sufficient. 
Where is that about <tlhob> not being a verb of speaking ?
 Second, I think the <-moH> on <chuS> probably does not belong. <chuS> means
 "be noisy", so your sentence means "What made (it) noisy?". This might be
 what you want, but I suspect you were going for "What was noisy?".
What I was actually going for was something similar to "What caused all that 
noise <I heard> yesterday?
> qama' ja'ta' 'avwI' , ' lujchu'pu' toDwI'pu'qoq. 
 > nItoD'e' lunIDtaHvIS Heghpu'be'wI'pu'bogh DImuHta' ! '
 You need a space between <nItoD> and <'e'>. It's a minor typo, but it looks
 like a significant error when you first see it.
 You also are not allowed an aspect suffix on the verb after <'e'>.
 Unfortunately, this rule combined with the rule about <-taH> and <-vIS>
 combine to mean that <-vIS> is not allowed after <'e'>, which is frankly
 just a little too weird for me. I suspect there is some sort of exception.
 Perhaps a <-taH> on the first verb counts for the <-vIS> on the second, as
 in <nItoDtaH 'e' lunIDvIS>. Perhaps <-taH> is allowed on the second verb
 only when <-vIS> is used. I can't tell you for certain.

That's a rule I keep misinterpreting. I think I'll get over it, but...

 > Haghta' 'avwI' .
 > (It's that Heghpu'be'wI'pu'bogh construction that concerns 
 > me...the pu' - pu' just doesn't look right...but ...)
 The double <-pu'> is fine, but it still isn't right. You have two type 9
 suffixes on one verb: <-wI'> and <-bogh>. Let's break the thing down one
 suffix at a time:
 Hegh - die
 Heghpu' - have died
 Heghpu'be' - have not died
 Heghpu'be'wI' - one who has not died
 Heghpu'be'wI'pu' - multiple people who have not died - exactly what you want
 Heghpu'be'wI'pu'bogh - ?????
 Just drop the <-bogh> and you are fine.

 ' wa'Hu' chuSqu'moH nuq ? ' tlhobta' qama'.
qama' ja'ta' 'avwI' , ' lujchu'pu' toDwI'pu'qoq. 
 nItoD'e' lunIDtaHvIS Heghpu'be'wI'pu'bogh DImuHta' ! '
But in defense of the use of the -ta' suffix, I was attempting to translate 
the following :

The prisoner asked the guard, "What caused all the noise yesterday?"
The guard told the prisoner, "Your 'rescuers' failed utterly. We executed the 
ones who didn't get killed trying to rescue you." I was implying (perhaps 
unneccesarily) that the death of *all* the recuers was deliberately 
undertaken, and (finally) completed. The noise the prisoner heard was the 
execution of the survivors.

Back to archive top level