tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Jul 03 14:45:52 1999

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: weekend-wIj'e'

ja' peHruS:
>ghunchu'wI' lutvammo' jIghelnIS, jatlh:

jatlh 'Iv?  jIjatlh'a'?  bIjatlh'a'?  chomISmoH.

>1) << lopno'Hey Dellaw'mo' Hoch, wanI'wIj vIDelnISlaw' je jIH.>>
>Is the subject of the sentence {Hoch} an inherent plural, thus being treated
>grammatically as a singular, or should {luDellaw'mo'} have been written here?

{Hoch} is grammatically singular.  Even if it were intended as a plural,
the object of the sentence is obviously plural if you've been following
the messages mentioned, and the {lu-} prefix would not be appropriate in
any case.

>2)  "Louisville"-Daq wIleng
>Is {leng} a verb that can optionally take {-Daq} or should ghunchu'wI' have
>written {maleng}?

Why ask me, when you can consult the interview in HolQeD 7:4?

MO:  {leng} works like {jaH}.  These are all okay:

               {yuQ vIleng} or (yuQDaq vIleng}
                    I travel to the planet

                       {yuQvo' jIleng}
                 I roam away from the planet

                       {yuQDaq jIleng}
             I roam (around/about) on the planet

     This is not okay:   {yuQ jIleng}

>3) ngajbe' leng 'ach tIqqu'be'
>{'ach} means "on the other hand, but, however."  I am having trouble getting
>it to feel right between two negative verbs for one subject.

Seng vIyajbe'.  jIHvaD Qapchu' mu'tlheghmeyvam.  I don't see the trouble,
so I'm unable to explain it away.

>4) jIH be'nalwI' jojDaq ba'taH.
>Even when using a spatial word such as {joj}, I still use {je} after the
>final noun of a series, producing {jIH be'nalwI' je}.  Where is the canon
>source for not following this?

bong mu' vInoppu' neH.  HIvqa' veqlargh.  I inadvertently left off one of
the shortest words in the Klingon language.

>5) jItlhup; vIjatlh yItamtaH!
>I thought this should be {jIjatlh:  yItam'eghmoH}.  First, {jIjatlh} instead
>of {vIjatlh} because the word is an utterance, not an object of the verb

I had intended to imply that I spoke to him, thus I tried to indicate the
recipient of my speech with the {vI-} prefix.  That's certainly acceptable
with the verb {ja'}, though perhaps not as obviously correct with {jatlh}.

>Second, {yItamtaH} implies that the child is already being quiet
>and the command-giver is ordering him to keep on being quiet.  {yItam'eghmoH}
>has been given to us as canon for "Quiet yourself!"

Where is this given?  References, please?

The command {yItamchoH} is used in the Star Trek: Klingon game.  I figured
"stay quiet" was more of an action than a state, so I was not worried about
the usual {-'egh} and {-moH} being used on an imperative form of a state of

>6) Daq tam ghaH be'nalwI' je.
>Does {tam} require the object to be plural?  Of course, {Daq} does not need
>to be made specifically plural.  Klingon nouns never have to have the type 2
>suffix to indicate plurality.  OTOH, if the object {Daq} is not intended to
>be plural, the verb {tam} should read {lutam}, due to the plural subject.

qay' nuq?  Of *course* there are two locations involved!  There are two
people who started out in two places, and now each occupies the location
that the other formerly had.  Whether or not a singular object works with
the verb {tam} is irrelevant to the sentence as I wrote it, which plainly
does *not* have a singular object with a plural subject.

Why do you make such a big deal about trying to interpret my sentences as
if there might be a mistake, instead of assuming that I said what I meant?

>7)  rInDI' tay, naychu'DI' 'ej Sawchu'DI' SIQwI'pu', qach pImDaq wIjaH.
>Amusing that our Klingon language word for "celebrant" is {SIQwI'}, for here
>it gets used for celebrants of a marriage ceremony just as it would have been
>used for celebrants of a Klingon ceremony involving pain.  My problem is with
>{qach pImDaq wIjaH}.  Does {jaH} arbitrarily allow for {-Daq} or should
>ghunchu'wI' have used {majaH}?

If you don't remember the discussions here, READ THE HOLQED INTERVIEW jay'!

>8) mI'nISqu' SIQwI'pu'; chaHvaD 'e' pon vay'.
>A little suffix like {-qu'} can radically change the meaning of a verb!  I
>understand this sentence to mean:  "Somebody persuades for them that the
>celebrants must dance {-qu'}."  Actually, I don't understand this sentence
>very clearly.

The {-qu'} here comes after another suffix.  Read it again, keeping in mind
that the emphatic suffix generally applies to the suffix it follows.  Also
notice that pronouns generally follow their antecedents, so your unusually
literal translation obscures the obvious connection.

>9) tugh Hoch mI'rup.
>"Subjects were ready to dance all the dances?"  Could be.  I just would have
>expected {tugh mI'rup Hoch} and I was surprised not to get it.

reH latlh qabDaq qul tuj law' Hoch tuj puS.  jIghItlhHa' neH.

>10)  mI'wI' Daq wIghoS jIH be'nalwI',
>I was expecting to have {je} at the end of this phrase, too.

HIvqa'qu' veqlargh.

>11)  mejtaHvIS SIQwI'pu', chaHDaq pagh wIjaD.
>I don't feel so good about {jaD}.  I prefer {baH}.

qay'be' mu' DamaSbogh.  veqlarghlI' yIbuS 'ej veqlarghwI' vIbuS.

>12)  rInDI' lopno' mebpa'mey wIghoS.
>I asked the list about this and got no answer several months ago.  KGT gives
>us the word {mebpa'mey} for "hotel."  Probably works for "motel" and "guest
>rooms" just as well.  The question was:  Is {mebpa'mey} one singular noun or
>a combination of the nouns {meb+pa'} and the pluralizing suffix {-mey}?  I
>was trying to find out if I should use {wIghoS} as ghunchu'wI' has or if I
>should use {DIghoS}.  Still wondering.

I should have said {DIghoS}.  reH Suvrup SuvwI''a'.

>13) pa' be'nalwI' vav SoS je DItlhej.
>>From this sentence I get "We accompanied my wife, [someone's] father, and
>[someone's] mother there."  If ghunchu'wI' were trying to convey "my wife's
>father and mother," don't we need to say {be'nalwI' vav be'nalwI' SoS je}?

wIjatlhlaHqu' 'a wIjatlhnISqu'be'.  The range of applicability of {je} is
ambiguous when there are more than two nouns in front of it.  The context
is adequate for you to have understood what I was trying to convey.

>14) jaj veb juHDaq wIchegh.
>I remember this problem at qep'a loSDIch.  What has been the solution?  Is
>{-Daq} optional with {chegh} or should ghunchu'wI' have written {machegh}?

jISaHbe'.  vIyajlu'.

-- ghunchu'wI'

Back to archive top level