tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Jun 30 21:08:34 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC challenge
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: KLBC challenge
- Date: Thu, 1 Jul 1999 00:10:46 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
- Priority: NORMAL
On Wed, 30 Jun 1999 20:04:55 -0400 Jeremy Silver
<[email protected]> 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 |\ [email protected]
> __________________| \ [email protected]
> |__________________| |
> | | A1200, Blizzard 1260, 34Mb
> mupwI' yI'uchtaH! |__| 1.4Gb HD. Amiga Forever.
>
charghwI' 'utlh