Re: KLBC two semi-old posts to be critiqued please

["William H. Martin" <whm2m@virginia.edu>]

On Sat, 25 Dec 1999 19:39:29 +0000 (GMT) Mark A Miles 
<nine9@ukshells.co.uk> wrote:

> Well... actually it's just one for me... pagh, I know you're busy, so can
> *anybody* please tell me if my first post was syntactically correct, etc.
> Here it is:
> 
> jenwI' mupongnISqu' tlhInganpu'

"Klingons MUST call me {jenwI'}." I accept this, using the 
prefix shortcut, though some are happier with:

jIHvaD jenwI' lupongnISqu' tlhInganpu'.
 
> "Dumfries"-Daq wa'maH Hut ben jIboghpu'("Scotland" Sep).

"Nineteen years ago I was born in Dumfries (in Scotland)."

While the parenthetical remark may be gibberish to a Klingon, 
given the placement of the words, I understood it. You intend 
this to be a locative and it should be treated as such. We've 
seen compounded locatives {XDaq YDaq} referring to a place 
within a place.

> DaH "Edinburgh" yoSvo' Sum juHwIj.

"Now, my home is near Edinburgh."

Okrand tells us this should be {yoSDaq} and not {yoSvo'}. You 
are giving a locative for the place one considers to be "here" 
for the verb "near", since one is always near or far related to 
"here". So, it is a normal locative and not {-vo'}. In other 
words, it is a lot like saying, "In Edinburgh, you'd say that my 
home is nearby."

> DaH DuSaQ'a'Daq jIHaD.

Now, I study at a major school.
 
> "Danish" Hol, "German" Hol, De'wI' QeD je vIHaD

I study Danish and German languages and Computer Science.

> QIt tlhIngan Hol vIHaD je

"I also slowly study Klingon language." I'll offer as a note 
that when Okrand has talked about the use of {je} as an adverb 
like this, the details he talked about (much to my frustration) 
consistently took the form that someone else studies Klingon 
language and I do, too. He never has used it or explained it in 
the form "I do other things and I study Klingon, too." 
Meanwhile, I don't know any Klingonist (except Okrand) who has 
not used it the way you did.
 
> "Tibet" vItlhabmoH vInIDtaH je

The single most frustrating, arbitrary rule that Okrand has 
stated and often broken, himself, is that you can't use a Type 7 
verb suffix on the second verb of a Sentence as Object 
construction. So, technically, this is wrong. You can't use 
{-taH} here without breaking this rule. For what it is worth.
And while you didn't put the pronoun {'e'} before {vInID}, you 
needed it. There is no other justification for having two main 
verbs here. So, this should have been:

*Tibet* vItlhabmoH 'e' vInID.
 
> DaHjaj "Day of Honour" paq vIje'pu'. 

"Today, I have bought the book 'Day of Honor'." People will 
argue with you over whether or not you should have used {-pu'} 
here. You are referring to a time when the purchase is 
completed, and the problem is that with a time stamp like 
{DaHjaj}, it includes times when you have completed the purchase 
and also times when you had not purchased it yet. The main point 
here is that if you include {-pu'}, some people will cheer you 
on and others will tell you that you are wrong. Meanwhile, if 
you leave off {-pu'}, generally everyone will leave you alone 
and think the sentence is perfectly understandable.

> Do' Daj 'oH [I was meaning "it might prove interesting"].

"Fortunately, it is interesting." You probably want the adverb 
{chaq}. Likely you wanted something like:

wej paqvam vIlaD. chaq Daj.

You would not include {'oH} unless you were accentuating the 
subject, or trying to make it clear that it was {'oH} and not 
{ghaH} or {bIH} or {chaH}. It is also perfectly acceptable to 
say {paqvam} as many times as needed for clarity. Repetition of 
nouns like this is not considered bad style in Klingon.
 
> yapqu'! ta' Hol vIghItlhqangtaHbe'

"It is ENOUGH! I do not continue to be willing to write 
Empiror's language." Realize that {ghItlh} refers to drawing 
letters of the alphabet or otherwise marking on something. It is 
the physical practice of writing, not the recording of words as 
any kind of abstract. You probably wanted to use {qon} instead.
 
> Also, what's the difference between nuv & ghot?

Others have answered. What's the difference between the English 
words "someone" and "somebody"? Synonyms do not necessarily have 
a meaningful difference.
 
> jenwI'
> *mutta'* tuq
> jenwi@nine9.ukshells.co.uk
> http://www.nine9.ukshells.co.uk

charghwI'