tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Jun 30 13:40:45 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC challenge
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: KLBC challenge
- Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 16:40:40 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
- Priority: NORMAL
On Wed, 30 Jun 1999 16:12:09 -0400 Jeremy Silver
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On 30-Jun-99, charghwI' wrote:
> >On Tue, 29 Jun 1999 15:18:43 -0400 Jeremy Silver
> ><[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> On 29-Jun-99, charghwI' wrote:
> >>
> >> >Ask me a question. In Klingon. If you think this assignment is
> >> >too easy, then make it an inventive question. If you think this
> >> >is too hard, make it a simple one.
> >>
> >> First to lay a little groundwork.
> >> pa'DajDaq tlhIngan SuvwI'.
>
> > What does the Klingon warior DO in his room?
>
> pa'DajDaq ghaHtaH tlhIngan SuvwI'
Remember that if you have a noun as subject to the verb "to be"
represented by a Klingon pronoun acting as a verb, that subject
needs a suffix. I could tell you which one, but I'd rather have
you tell me which one. Likely you'd remember it better if I
don't just tell you.
> >> lojmItDaq muplu' pagh wab chenmoHmeH lojmIt 'In chu'lu'.
>
> >This is pretty good. It might be a little clearer if you dropped
> >the {-Daq} from the first word. One does not strike at the
> >door's location. One strikes the door. In English, you knock ON
> >the door, but you strike the door. Prepositions are implied in
> >some verbs toward their direct objects, especially when you
> >cross language barriers.
>
> >> 'em lojmItDaq 'Iv leghlaHbe' SuvwI'.
>
> >You were trying something really interesting here.
> > You aren't asking a question here, so
> >{'Iv} is not the right word.
>
> 'em lojmItDaq vay'bogh leghlaHbe' SuvwI'.
{vay'} is a noun. {-bogh} is a verb suffix.
> or
> SoQmo' lojmIt 'em lojmItDaq pagh leghlaH SuvwI'.
Notice that with the term {'em lojmItDaq} you are referring to
"at the area behind's door", or "at the door of the area
behind". I don't think that is what you really intend to be
talking about. The location you want is "at the area behind".
Which area behind? "at the door's area behind". Reconsider your
word order.
> >> The question.
> >> nuq jach SuvwI'?
> >> "yI'el", "pe'el", "'el" ghap jach'a'?
>
> >nap. <<yI'el!>> lojmIt mup wa' ro' neH. latlh wIvHey tu'lu':
>
> Simple. yI'el! Only one fist strikes the door. There is another apparent
> choice:
>
> ><<nuqneH!>> vaj ramchu' nuv mI'.
> "What do you want" then the number of people is clearly trivial.
>
> >> "yI'ngu''egh", "pe'ngu''egh", "ngu'" ghap jach'a'?
>
> ><<yIngu''egh!>> Hoch SuvwI'pu' DarI'be'chugh vaj Hoch SuvwI'
> >DarI'laH.
>
> "yIngu''egh" If you dont hail all warriors then you can hail each warrior.
You translate well from Klingon to English. majQa'!
> toH! DaH jIjaj.
That's either a typo or a spelling error. Your choice.
> >> "yIDuv wa' 'ej SoH ghovmojpu'" jach'a'?
>
> >I don't understand the word {ghovmojpu'}. My guess is that it
> >should be {ghovmoHpu'}, but I don't understand what {-pu'} is
> >doing there, and with {SoH} in the object position, I strongly
> >suspect that we have a missing verb prefix.
>
> I think the following is closer to what I intended:
> "yIDuv wa' 'ej SoH bIghovlu'pu'" jach'a'
>
> What I had in mind was the challenge used by Terran sentries "Advance one and
> be recognised".
The problem is that the imperitive implies a second person
subject and it seems very strange to have an explicit subject
{wa'} added to that. I've never seen anything like it done,
though I accept that Okrand could do it and it would of course
be right. Since he hasn't done it yet, I'm less sure it is right.
As for "SoH bIghovlu'pu'" look at the word order again. O-V-S.
Object-Verb-Subject. Hmmm. Then again, look at the prefix {bI-}
and the suffix {-lu'}. They don't work together. Either this
needs a good bit more work, or you might consider starting over
trying to say what you meant to say. Consider using Sentence As
Object with something like "I recognize you. Permit that."
> >Meanwhile, I'll point out a huge cultural presumption that you
> >are making here. I honestly think that if you knock on a
> >Klingon's door, he would probably look around and wonder what
> >the noise is. Are you nailing something to his door? Why are you
> >beating on the door? If you wanted to come in, why on Kronos
> >would you not just open the door and come in? You want my
> >PERMISSION to enter? How... how... how.... HUMAN of you! My
> >temptation is to pull out a disruptor and dispatch you through
> >the door. What an annoyance!
>
> I do agree the use of knocking on doors is a presumption. I was under the
> impression people barging in to a warriors quarters uninvited (e.g. if the
> Warrior in question was a superior) would be similarly dispatched for not
> showing the proper respect. Is this impression flawed?
I'm sure I cannot speak for all Klingons, but it would seem that
privacy is not a high value for Klingons, except in
circumstances where a Klingon is willing to defend it. In other
words, if I am in a room and I don't want anyone barging in, it
is my responsibility to lock the door. Then you'd try to barge
in, discover the door locked and you'd yell at me to open it.
Any other sequence of events would be impolite.
> Door chimes still appear to be in use (I seem to recall them mentioned in
> KGT), but if it does not function, say, due to a disruptor accident, something
> else may be needed.
I'm sorry I missed that part of KGT.
> Might they try hailing the occupant through the door "Qapbe' lojmIt 'In." then
> "jI'el vIneH" or "qajatlh vIneH" instead of knocking?
Likely this should be part of a larger discussion.
> >charghwI' 'utlh
>
> Regards,
> --
> Jeremy Silver |\ [email protected]
> __________________| \ [email protected]
> |__________________| |
> | | A1200, Blizzard 1260, 34Mb
> mupwI' yI'uchtaH! |__| 1.4Gb HD. Amiga Forever.
>
charghwI' 'utlh