tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Nov 04 16:33:40 1999

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

RE: KLBC vuDlIjvaD qatlhob

jatlh juDmoS:

>>> ghom pong 'e' vImugh 'e' vInIDtaH. 
 
jIjangmeH jIjatlh:

>> maj. You've got an extra <'e'> in there - the one 
>> after <pong> doesn't make much sense. Also, type 
>> seven suffixes like <-taH> are not allowed to go 
>> on a verb after <'e'>.
 
>> ghom pong vImugh 'e' vInID.

jang juDmoS. jatlh:
> jIyaj. But I was attempting to state that I was trying 
> (in an ongoing fashion) to translate the name of the 
> group. I always thought that the 'e' referred to the 
> clause/word immediately preceding it as the object of 
> the verb immediately following it. I was not aware that 
> they could not be 'nested'.

<'e'> refers to the *sentence* before it. There is no need to use <'e'> to
refer to individual words - just use the word.

There is no prohibition against <'e'> being "nested", although I suspect it
is pretty rare. One example I can think of is: <SuvlI' mangHompu' 'e' vIbej
'e' vInID>.

> Thanks about the -taH following 'e',  as well. 
> Hadn't heard of that one.

It's often called the "obscure rule". It's a single sentence in the middle
of the sentence as object (6.2.5) section of TKD on page 66. If you really
want to specify an aspect, you can put it on the *first* verb; the second
verb takes on the aspect of the first.
 
>>> qay' pab.
 
>> Do'Ha'.

> Here I was implying that the grammar of this particular 
> phrase eluded me.

'e' vIloyba'.

> "Star", coupled with the verb "Lone", (here used 
> adjectively) is merely another name for Texas, and not 
> referring to a literal star. This 'pronoun clause' (?) 
> I attempted to clarify using Sep (region), which is the 
> 'possessor' of the Warriors, which in turn were the 
> possessors of the group/association. This would then be 
> an "N1(adj)-N2-N3-N4" construction, translating as 
> something akin to "Group of the Warriors of the Region 
> of the Lone Star". My problem with this is that 'the 
> region of the lone star' could be interpreted literally, 
> and I was unsure of the grammar in this situation.

It's just a rather large noun-noun construction. Nothing too strange about
it; nothing to worry about. 

And names are just names. There was a club in the town where I went to
college called the "Blue Note". Interpreted literally, one would expect to
find a scrap of blue paper right on Speedway. But nobody interpreted it
literally. qay'be'chu'.
 
>>> *teqSIS*Daq ghommaj. 
 
>> This is a sentence without a verb. Basically, it 
>> just says "Our group in Texas.". You want 
>> <teqSISDaq 'oHtaH ghommaj'e'>.

> I DID leave out the pronoun 'oH I had intended. I think 
> that a state of being verb is implied in that pronoun, 
> isn't it? Similar in construction to tlhIngan jIH ?

HIja'.
 
>>> ' Hov mobbogh ' 'oH *teqSIS* Sep pong.
 
>> If you're going to use a <-bogh> clause, it should be 
>> <mobbogh Hov>, since the subject goes *after* the verb. 
>> However, <mob> means "be alone", so it can act like an 
>> adjective and go right after the verb: <Hov mob>.

> Again, uncertainty as to the grammar in the use of this 
> nickname.. "Star which is alone"?

"Star which is alone" or "alone star". "Lone/alone" is one of those
pecularities of English that changes form depending on how it is used.

And the grammar doesn't change just because this is a nickname.

>>> Hov mobbogh SepDaq SuvwI'pu' ghom , qar'a' ?  
>>> (Lone Star Warriors Association)
 
>> <Hov mob> instead of <Hov mobbogh> from above . . .
 
>> The locative suffix <-Daq> doesn't make much sense in 
>> noun phrases like this, and even if it did, I don't 
>> think it's what you want. You're the Warriors 
>> Association *of* Texas, not *in* Texas.

> Again, the nickname gets me. I thought perhaps that 
> stating we 'were in the region of the lone star' 
> might help in identifying the Terran/United States 
> region of Texas.

Again, don't worry about it. It's a big noun-noun construction, but it's
perfectly understandable. Nothing changes because it's a nickname.
 
>> Finally, the plural suffix <-pu'> is not necessary here 
>> (plurals almost never are), and I would leave it off.
 
>> Hov mob Sep SuvwI' ghom
 
> I appreciate all your help. Nice to know I was 
> a. Understood
> b. Not *that* far off the mark 

cha'logh bIqar.


pagh
Beginners' Grammarian

tlhIngan Hol Mailing List FAQ
http://www.bigfoot.com/~dspeers/klingon/faq.htm

Back to archive top level