Re: KLBC challenge

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

On Wed, 30 Jun 1999 20:04:55 -0400 Jeremy Silver 
<jeremy@mupwi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
...
[charghwI']
> >> > What does the Klingon warior DO in his room? 
[Jeremy Silver]
> >> pa'DajDaq ghaHtaH tlhIngan SuvwI'
[charghwI'] 
> >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.
[Jeremy]
> pa'DajDaq ghaHtaH tlhIngan SuvwI''e'

[charghwI']
majQa'!

... 
> >> 'em lojmItDaq vay'bogh leghlaHbe' SuvwI'.
> 
> >{vay'} is a noun. {-bogh} is a verb suffix.
> 
> lojmIt 'emDaq vay' leghlaHbe' SuvwI'.

maj.

> >> or
> >> SoQmo' lojmIt lojmItDaq 'em 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.
> 
> SoQmo' lojmIt lojmIt 'emDaq pagh leghlaH SuvwI'.
 
In a separate post, I used {lojmIt SoQmo'} where you have used 
{SoQmo' lojmIt}. Just to avoid confusing anyone, I'll explain 
that Jeremy is saying "Because the door is closed" while I'm 
saying "Because of the closed door". Both are valid. In his 
case, {-mo'} is a verb suffix. In my case, it is a noun suffix 
moved to the trailing adjective (as only Type 5 noun suffixes 
do).
 
> >> toH! DaH jIjaj.
> 
> >That's either a typo or a spelling error. Your choice. 
> 
> I noticed my error too late.
> 
> *DaH* jIyaj

maj. QInlIj DaDubbej.
 
...
> >> 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.
> 
> You mean {yI} implies only "you - singular", not "one (of you)", can be the
> subject?

The whole concept of "one of X" has been a point of serious 
argument on the list more than once. Meanwhile, my biggest 
problem with it here is that if you use a number alone, it is a 
noun. If it is a noun, I tend to expect that it is third person.

I can't be sure of that, but that's just what I've come to 
expect. Maybe others disagree with me. I can accept that. If you 
said {yI-X wa' SoH}, I might find that easier to swallow. Then 
it is acting as a number (a modifier, like an adjective) and not 
as a noun. Then I get the person from the pronoun. Meanwhile, 
{yI-} already indicates singular second person subject, and 
Klingon always allows you to dodge redundant references to 
singular/plural, so why do you need {wa'} at all?

> Isnt "one (of you)" the same as "you - singular"?
> This is getting confusing.

In English, we don't have a second person singular that is 
distinct from the second person plural, so we come up with 
devices like "one of you", which is less necessary in Klingon.
 
> >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."
> > 
> 
> I seem to be too hung up on the words, not the meaning - and getting in a
> right old mess.
> 
> Do these work?
> {qaghovmeH yIDuv} or {qangu'meH yIDuv}

Yes. These work quite well.

> Is this what you had in mind?
> {qaghov 'e' yIchaw'}

Exactly. Quite good.

> But there still seems to be the problem of separating one (don't care who)
> from a possible group and ordering him/her to do something.

You are obviously speaking to one person. That should be enough.

> >charghwI' 'utlh
> 
> -- 
>    Jeremy Silver   |\   jeremy@mupwi.demon.co.uk
>  __________________| \  j.silver@elsevier.co.uk
> |__________________|  | 
>                    |  | A1200, Blizzard 1260, 34Mb
>  mupwI' yI'uchtaH! |__| 1.4Gb HD. Amiga Forever.
> 

charghwI' 'utlh