tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Oct 10 10:08:29 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Mu'mey chu'
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Mu'mey chu'
- Date: Sun, 10 Oct 1999 13:11:05 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
- Priority: NORMAL
On Sun, 10 Oct 1999 11:42:11 -0500 Steven Boozer
<[email protected]> wrote:
> charghwI' wrote:
>
> : The following is NOT intended to replace HolQeD as a source of
> : definitions for these words. For anyone who doesn't have
> : HolQeD, it is better for you to get it and read Okrand's
> : extended descriptions of these words. I'm definitely
> : interpreting and abbreviating these descriptions here.
>
> Qu'vatlh! I still haven't received the last HolQeD. Monday is a postal
> holiday here in the U.S., so I'll probably get it sometime next week.
> Could I persuade you (or someone else) to post some of Okrand's example
> sentences illustrating a couple of the new words in context?
...
> : ghIq - then, subsequently (adv). Note that this is not a
> : conjunction, though you can use it in conjunction with a
> : conjunction [grin]. You can't join sentences with it alone. Use
> : it like any other adverbial. It only refers to the sequential
> : sense of "then".
>
> A sequential "then" is something we've needed to supplement {-DI'}.
> Examples of {ghIq} would be helpful though. How is it different from {vaj}
> in context? We know that {vaj} is used in "if...then" statements when the
> "then" clause is a consequence or result of the "if" clause -- e.g.
> {bIjeghbe'chugh vaj bIHegh}.
Sometimes {vaj} is used just like any other adverb. It begins a
sentence. When this happens, {ghIq} is used the same way. It is
an adverb and it begins a sentence. Meanwhile, {vaj} is also
used to connect a main clause to the preceeding dependent clause
with {-chugh} on that dependent clause's verb. There is no
parallel to this with {ghIq}. Okrand explicitly said that {ghIq}
can be used with a conjunction {'ej ghIq}, implying that {ghIq}
alone cannot connect two main clauses the way that {'ej} can. In
English, we do this all the time. "I entered the room, then I
sat down." In Klingon, it is not okay to drop the implied "and".
We'd have to say {pa' vI'el 'ej ghIq jIba'.} Of course, there's
nothing wrong with {pa' vI'el. ghIq jIba'.} Just keep it two
separate sentences.
> : tlhoy - overly, to an excessive degree, excessively, too much
> : (adv) Note that this modifies the VERB and not any NOUN of a
> : sentence. It refers to an action that is excessive and not that
> : the action involves too many or too much of a noun. See {'Iq}.
>
> Now this one is confusing. How is {tlhoy} different from the emphatic
> suffix {-qu'}, which Okrand has occasionally used in the sense of "too much"?
Apparently, he has never really used it to mean "too much". We
read that into {tujqu'choH QuQ}, translated as "The engines are
overheating," but apparently that was an interpretation of
simply saying, "The engines are becoming very hot." One supposes
that a Klingon engineer would not bother saying this unless it
was a signficant development.
If he ever HAS used {-qu'} to mean "too much", then that was
apparently no' Hol. Any time you want to mean "too much", use
{tlhoy}.
> tera'nganvaD romuluS HIq jabQo'. HoSghajqu'.
> They won't serve Romulan ale to Terrans. Too potent. (CK)
>
> I guess translating this last as "It's very strong/awfully potent" doesn't
> change the underlying thought. How would you use {tlhoy} here?
tlhoy HoSghaj.
> : 'Iq - be too many, be too much (v) Examples show it used adjectivally.
>
> I think I understand this one: it's used with nouns, similar to {law'} and
> {puS}, right?
Exactly.
> 'Iwchab 'Iq vISoppu'mo' jIrop.
> I'm sick because I've eaten too many blood pies.
>
> 'Iw HIq 'Iq Datlhutlhchugh bIchechchoH.
> If you drink too much bloodwine you'll get drunk.
Note that in these two examples, you could have used {tlhoy}
instead of {'Iq} because you get sick from excessively eating
blood pies and you get drunk from excessively drinking blood
wine. It just depends on how you think of it. Either the action
involves excessive quantites of direct object, or the action is
excessively performed.
Meanwhile, there are examples that require {'Iq} and not
{tlhoy}, like {gho'mo' nuvpu' 'Iq, Dej letlh.} It doesn't matter
how much stepping had been done by fewer people, the stairs
would not have collapsed. It was the number of people that was
signficant.
Qu'vaD 'Iq SapwI'pu'. Qu'vaD Sap SuvwI'pu' 'Iq.
chatlh qalmoH vutwI'pu' 'Iq.
jImevnIS. DaHjaj 'Iq Qu'meywIj.
> --
> Voragh
> Ca'Non Master of the Klingons
charghwI' 'utlh