tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Mar 05 16:48:32 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: KLBC: yIHnaQ
- From: "Andeen, Eric" <[email protected]>
- Subject: RE: KLBC: yIHnaQ
- Date: Fri, 5 Mar 1999 17:51:17 -0700
jatlh Thornton:
>{jIHvaD *kipper* yIvut. nIQ vISopmeH jIchegh.} - First cut.
This is just fine.
jatlh Jeremy Silver:
> for-me a-kipper you-cook. Breakfast, I-eat-it-for, I-return.
> Smoking is a preservation method. So I reckon the original
> poster had the right idea using the word tlhIch somewhere.
If it is important to say that the fish was smoked, rather than the more
generally saying the fish was cooked, then something involving <tlhIch> is
necessary. Thornton decided it was not that important.
> Would "I-return-for-breakfast" work alone? e.g. {nIQ vIcheghmeH}.
> Even with the original English phrase the eating is only implied. For all
> anyone knows you might be returning with the intention of slapping someone
> around the face with a wet (or dried and soot-stained) fish. Would the
> directness of Klingon culture require the qualification of eating?
I think the problem here is a basic misunderstanding of the suffix <-meH>.
There are two suffixes which correspond roughly to the some aspect of the
English word "for" - <-vaD> and <-meH>. <-vaD> is used when the noun it is
attached to is the beneficiary of the action of the sentence. To say
something like "I cooked dinner for Maltz", you would use <-vaD>: <matlhvaD
'uQ vIvut>.
<-meH> is used when the action of the sentence is done for the purpose of
accomplishing the verb the <-meH> is attached to. Examples: <jIpuvtaHmeH
jIqet> - "I run to stay healthy"; <qoH DaHoHmeH nachDajDaq nagh 'ugh
yIpummoH> - "To kill a fool, drop a large rock on his head". <-meH> is
really better explained as "in order to".
What does "I returned for breakfast" mean? You returned because you wanted
to eat breakfast. You returned in order to eat breakfast. You returned at or
before the breakfast hour. You forgot your breakfast, so you returned to
pick it up and go back to work. It could be any of these, but the context
makes the first two (which are pretty much the same) the most likely. <nIQ
vISopmeH jIchegh>.
> As kipper is a name of something (and that burnt animal e.g.
> kipper is not likely to be on a Klingon menu) the first method
> was probably most correct. I think people here prefer people
> to just quote the word using whatever method this list favours,
> and dont bother transliterating it.
We generally prefer things not be transliterated on this list. In spoken
Klingon, it's a little fuzzier - it's hard to downshift into English in the
middle of a Klignon sentence.
> It might need subtitling/describing for the peeps that dont know
> what one is though. Besides, something vaguely to do with hitting
> labels, might appear cannon later. {telDu' ghajchugh Suy'mey} (Did
> I get that right?)
Looks OK to me. I suppose <telDu' SuqDI' Suy'mey> or <puvchoHDI' Suy'mey>
would be fine too. But since it's a very culture specific idiom, don't
expect a Klingon to get it.
> So one night later (with a bit of help to speed things up) we end up with
> something like:
> {jIHvaD *kipper* yItlhIch. nIQ vIcheghmeH}
See above about <nIQ vIcheghmeH> - it doesn't make any sense.
> Strictly speaking {tlhIch} is a noun, and shouldnt be used like this - but
> some nouns are the same as verbs. How do you know which nouns can act like
> verbs or vice-versa? Can we only use cannon examples?
Some nouns are also verbs, but we should rely on the dictionary to find out
which ones. Without evidence to the contrary, <vItlhIch> sounds just as
weird in Klingon as "I computered a few things today" or "I will idea that
tomorrow".
> Anyone need to shoot the resulting attempt full of holes?
I guess that would be my job {{;-)>
pagh
Beginners' Grammarian