tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Nov 12 06:46:21 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC Intro: Part two
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: KLBC Intro: Part two
- Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1999 09:45:47 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
- Priority: NORMAL
On Thu, 11 Nov 1999 20:08:41 EST [email protected] wrote:
> In a message dated 99-11-11 18:13:19 EST, you write:
> Don't sugar-coat it, man...tell me what you *really* think.
Oops. There I go again. [sigh]
qen tlhoS bang vISuq. jIlujmo' jIbelHa'chu'. jIbelHa'taHvIS
QInlIj vIlaD. jIjangtaHvIS jIbelHa'law'taHvIS je.
> > cha'DIch:
> > tera'ngan vIttlhegh tIQ 'e' vImugh vInIDtaH. jImughchu' ' e' choja' vIneH.
>
> You have misplaced the pronoun {'e'}. You want it between
> {vImugh} and {vInIDtaH}. You also don't want any Type 7 suffix
> on a verb following {'e'}. That's one of Okrand's great "gotcha"
> rules many of us hate, but we generally abide by it. Drop {-taH}
> from {vInIDtaH}. You don't really need it, anyway. The sentence
> works just fine without it.
>
> tera'ngan vIttlhegh tIQ vimugh 'e' vInID.
>
> Well, actually, I was attempting to imply that I am still (ongoing) trying to
> translate the ancient Terran proverb. I was under the impression that the
> -taH suffix gave that connotation. It was in an attempt to complete the
> attempt that I sought your august counsel.
You have the right idea about {-taH}. Meanwhile, look in TKD on
page 66 in the last sentence of the second paragraph: "In
complex sentences of this type, the second verb never takes an
aspect suffix (section 4.2.7)." We don't like this rule, and
Okrand has broken it in some of his own examples, but we do
follow it whenever we think of it, and specifically in your
example as in most examples, it is not necessary. If you really
want {-taH}, put it on "{vImugh}. Note that there is no really
important difference in this specific example between
continuously trying to translate and trying to continuously
translate. Either way involves attempts to translate and lots of
time.
> Your second sentence would be perfect if Klingon ever has
> indirect quotation. Unfortunately, I don't remember ever seeing
> this in any usage. More typically, you'd use direct quotation,
> so you'd drop the {'e'} before {choja'} and you'd change
> {jImughchu'} to {bImughchu'}, since you want to hear us say "You
> speak clearly." You don't want to hear us say, "I speak clearly."
>
> Actually, I did not want to hear you say anything. I thought what I said was
> "I want you to *tell* me (ja' = tell, report) that I *translate* (mugh)
> clearly. I suppose that means I did not.
Well, we've seen examples of {ja'} used as a verb of speech, and
we've seen it used with a person as the direct object, but we
have not seen {'e'} used as a direct object of {ja'}. When you
do that, it looks a lot like indirect quotation and so far as we
know, this is an idea that has never occurred to Klingons.
> > " jIQIj 'e' DaneHchugh vaj not bIyajchu' . "
>
> You don't need {'e'} with {neH}. I know what you are trying to
> say here, but my gut says that this doesn't fully carry the
> meaning. I don't know a concise way to say this in Klingon.
>
> tIq Dab qechvam. yab Dabbe' qechvam, vaj SoHvaD qechvam
> vIQIjlaHbe'.
>
> This idea dwells in the heart.
> This idea does not dwell in the mind, so I cannot explain it for you.
> Hmmmm.....
Good. That is exactly the effect I was looking for.
> > juDmoS
>
> charghwI'