tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Mar 03 11:58:59 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: something KLBC
- From: "Andeen, Eric" <[email protected]>
- Subject: RE: something KLBC
- Date: Wed, 3 Mar 1999 13:01:26 -0700
jIjatlh:
>>This would be perfect without the <-meH> suffix. Why is it there?
jatlh 'oghwI':
> I have been thinking about something else that had a <-meH> on it.
> Could you show me a couple of sentences that use <-meH> in them,
> as I find its use confusing.
qay'be'. <-meH> can be used in two basic ways. The first is to describe a
noun, as in things like <ghojmeH taj>. This is literally something like
"knife in order to learn" or "knife for learning", but it is usually
translated as "learning knife" or something similar. Marc Okrand used this
phrase for "boy's knife". Other examples include <mI'meH vaS> - "dance hall"
and <qagh SopmeH mIw> - "process for eating qagh". This is actually quite
simple in Klingon, but it tends to be hard for English speakers.
The other way to use <-meH> is to modify a verb (which actually modifies the
whole sentence). Some examples are <mataHmeH maSachnIS> - "To survive, we
must expand"; "Huch vISuqmeH, De'wI'mey vIghuntaH" - "I program computers to
earn money."
>>> DaHjaj, yeb tlhaqwIj Qop.
>>
>>Rememver your sentence order: object-verb-suffix. Your watch didn't
>>wear something else out - it just wore out. Also, <Qop> is "be worn
>>out", meaning your watch is in a state of being worn out. This is a
>>perfect place for the suffix <-choH> - the important idea of the
>>sentence is not the state your watch is in today, but the fact that
>>it just got into that state.
>> Sometime I don't find it easy to recognise what is the object and
>> what is the subject.
As in English, the subject is the thing doing the action, and the object is
the thing having the action done to it. Since Klingon uses verbs a little
more broadly than English, the subject in a Klingon sentence may also be the
thing which is "being" the action, as in <ghung Qa'> - "The kra is hungry".
>>DaHjaj QopchoH yeb tlhaqwIj.
>
>>> 'oH vItI'.
>
>>maj. machqu' yeb tlhaq jo. bIpo'bej.
>
>>> tlhIH, yeb tlhaqwIj Qopbe'.
>
>>OK - now I don't understand. What is the <tlhIH> doing there. Do you mean
>><tugh>? Also, same goes for <Qop> here as above. The one difference is
that
>>you probably want <-qa'> instead of <-choH>: the watch is going back into
a
>>state of not being worn out.
> sorry, I looked at the line below in the dictionary that should be,
> wa'Hu', yeb tlhaqwIj Qopbe'
Well, actually it should be <wa'Hu' Qopbe' yeb tlhaqwIj> - same comments
about sentence order. Since the action happened yesterday, you don't need a
<-choH> or <-qa'> suffix, though.
>>> tlhIh, be' navDev HIv loD navDev.
>>> buD nuja' 'e'.
>
>>jIyajbe'qa'. What is <navDev>? The closest thing I can think of is
<naDev>,
>>which doesn't make any sense. Also, the pronoun <'e'> can't be the subject
>>of a verb.
> wa'Hu', naDev be' HIv naDev loD
> I could not think of a way to say flatmates so I came up with women here,
> but I think I got the noun-noun bit incorrect.
toH! DaH jIyaj. There's no easy way to express "flatmate" ("roommate" for
the Yankees in the audience) in Klingon. I remember <juHjup> and <juHqoch>
being used and sounding OK. I would probably say <juHwIj DabwI'> - someone
who lives in my house.
<naDev> is usually used as a locative to describe where the action is going
on, so it goes at the beginning of the sentence. I think your'e trying to
use it here as "the woman from here", and it is a bit awkward.
> buD nuja' be' naDev.
I think you mean the woman is telling you (plural - y'all in Southern) that
the man is lazy, and I think you have it just about right. The <naDev>
doesn't work any better here, but the rest is OK. When writing out quotes
like this, I generally include <>'s to make things easier to read:
<buD!> nuja' be'.
>>> DIrojlI'.
>>> DaHjaj, DIrojpu'
>>DaH loQ jIyajqa'. I do have a little problem with your aspect suffixes,
>>though. When is the action in the first sentence happening? If it's in the
>>recent past, it makes sense. Otherwise, it doesn't.
> Well that was supposed to be said in the bit above, but as it was
> incorrect.....
DaH jIyaj. bIlugh.
>>Also, what is the object of <roj> here. I don't know that <roj> can take
an
>>object, or if it can, what that object would be. It is defined as "make
>>peace", not "make peace with". I would expect <roj> to be used like <roj
>>yuQjIjDIvI', tlhIngan wo' je>.
> I'll try to think of another way of doing it.
Actually, you don't have to. If you are included in the group that is making
peace, just say <maroj>. If you are not, then just say <roj> or <roj chaH>.
pagh
Beginners' Grammarian