tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Nov 04 06:00:27 1999

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: KLBG Re: Some questions



"William H. Martin" wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 03 Nov 1999 12:27:36 -0800 Ben Gibson
> <[email protected]> wrote:

> > > > “toH. ‘e’ luSovchugh [Carthage] veng vavpu' ([Carthage]
> > > > DevwI’pu'), Quch, vIbej*. qatlh ‘oH ja’be’ SoSlI’. qatlh ‘oH
> > > > tIja’be’.
> > >
> > > [Note that it is a bad thing to insert sentences between {'e'}
> > > and the two sentences linked by it. The {toH.} here is probably
> > > not a good thing.] "So. If the fathers and leaders of the city
> > > of Carthage and a forehead knows this, I am sure it." [This
> > > seems a bit odd.] [The next sentence is unintelligible, since I
> > > know of no way to combine a imperative command and a question,
> > > as you have done, and gain any meaning out of it, plus you've
> > > used {-be'} instead of {-Qo'} in with a verb with an imperative
> > > prefix. I'm guessing you didn't mean to use {tI-} and perhaps
> > > instead meant to use {cho-} meaning "Why didn't you tell me
> > > this?"
> >
> > Quch - (v) (be) happy. He/she/it or They be happy. That part
> > I was sure I got right. Obviously I didn't make that verb
> > distinguished enough. (sigh)
> 
> It is set apart by commas with no obvious function in the larger
> sentence, which seems to be more than one sentence joined by a
> comma with no conjunction. Perhaps if you put {vaj} in front of
> {Quch} and then replaced the comma following {Quch} with the
> word {'e'}, this would make sense.

qatlho'! Hija'. DaH vIlegh.

> > > > “qaHagh! Qaw’pu [Carthage], luSov Hoch.”
> > >
> > > "I laugh you. Carthage has destroyed, everybody knows it."
> >
> > Actually, It is supposed to be choHagh. Again I wasn't sure
> > if that would work and hoping that someone would address it.
> 
> I can't see {Hagh} taking a direct object. It means "laugh", not
> "laugh at". While some like to just use intransitive verbs
> transitively and claim that nothing says that you can't, the
> problem is that there is a special relationship between verbs
> and the limited set of nouns that can behave as their direct
> object. For {bav}, the direct object is the thing the subject is
> going around.

Well this is what I am thinking. And obviously this may be
screwed up, which is why this type of discussion is so
valuable to me. DaH Qagh vIHoHnIS.

If one says "jIHagh", "bIHagh" or simply "Hagh". I think
that means "I laugh, you laugh, or they laugh, respectively.
If there is no object, then the verb is used intransitively.
"qaHagh", to me means I laugh (at) you. Possibly the same as
SoHDaq jIHagh. (Although for some reason I keep thinking of
French knights in a castle taunting English kinigits), or
maybe "choHaghmoH". In short if an object is provided to
this particular verb, I think it means the verb is used
transitively. That in ta' Hol the difference between
transitive and intransitive verbs is a bit more fuzzy than
in English. If the object is another person or thing, then
one is laughing at that.

qaHagh, Does it mean I laugh at you or I laugh with you?
That is a good question that never occured to me. It appears
to me that such a distinction is whether you intended to be
funny or not. In both cases the laughter is directed at the
object. The difference is in the intent of the object,
whether to object intended to be funny or not, and not in
the action itself. And that distinction will have to be
decided by context. Obviously if I say qaHagh to a Klingon
who did not intend to be funny, he may take exception and
smack me around a bit. And if he were making a joke, he
might be pleased that he succeeded.

In short, I think that Hagh can be both. It is not a
position that I will defend strongly. I present it only to
see if this is right, as an aid in debugging my thinking.
> 
> So, if you assume that {Hagh} can take a direct object, then
> what is that relationship? Is it who or what you laugh at? Is it
> who you laugh with? Is it the joke? Is it the location? From the
> definition, there's no way to discern this. The only way you can
> work with the current definition is to not use a direct object
> with {Hagh}. You have to think about meaning and available
> tools. {jItlhaQmo' bIHagh.}

Yeah I see how that works. But again, how do we know I
intended to be funny? 
> 
> > Also, I am confused by your use of "has" above. And I
> > suspect it is the same problem between transitive and
> > intransitive verbs, that I am having. How do you tell which
> > verbs are which?
> 
> The definition of Qaw' is "destroy". This is not the same thing
> as "be destroyed". These concepts are not interchangable. If you
> want to say "the city is destroyed", then you don't say {Qaw'
> veng}. You say {veng Qaw'lu'.} See? The city is not the subject
> of destruction. It is the object of destruction.

Ah yes. That makes sense.
> 
> Some Klingon verbs have the passive sense, like {Dal}. That
> means "be boring". It doesn't mean "be bored". Both of these
> concepts have to do with the verb "bore" but the relationship
> between the verb and its subject is quite different. One of the
> main functions of a verb is to explain the relationship between
> the subject and an oject, if there is one. You seem to be
> ignoring that relationship.

Not ignoring on purpose. Just confused by it.
> 
> > > Okay. Though this doesn't say KLBC, I'm judging by the nature of
> > > the errors so far, this is something pagh likely would prefer to
> > > handle...
> >
> > Still qatlho'. choQaHqu'. jItljetlh vIQub.
> 
> I probably should be able to guess what you were trying to say,
> but I can't.

I thank you. You help me greatly. I progress, I think (it).
But my goal, it is far away. (Anyway that was what I was
attempting to say.)
> 
> > 'ach ngoQwIj 'oH
> > Hop. jISuv, jIluj, jIghojtaH.
> 
> yInIDtaH. bIDub'eghbejtaH.

yIn 'oH.

> 
> > > charghwI'
> >
> > Ben (DraQoS)
> 
> charghwI'


Back to archive top level