tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Oct 24 09:12:58 1999

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: nID cha' attn:KLBG

"Andeen, Eric" wrote:
> jatlh Ben:
> > Greetings.

> I think you need to go through TKD section 6.3, which talks about using
> pronouns to translate the English "to be" concept.

Thanks that I do, now that you mention it.
> > Quj'a' DraQoS'vo
> Nouns with type five suffixes like <-vo'> go at the beginning of a sentence.
> This is not a sentence - just a fragment - but the type five suffix should
> still go first, I think.
This is the title of the piece. And the author (me). I am
not sure what is wrong with this particular construction.

> > veS Hoch yIn
> Warfare, everything, life . . . I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean.
> I think maybe you meant <noH 'oH Hoch yIn'e'> - "Each life is a war". Note
> that <noH> refers to a specific conflict, while <veS> refers to the general
> concept of warfare. So you would probably say <noH 'oH yIn'e'> for "A life
> is a war" versus <veS 'oH yIn'e'> for "Life (in general) is war".

The TKD identifies Hoch as "everyone, all, everything (n)"
The KLI word list further clarifies "[TKW p33 - first in
noun-noun pair] [In HolQeD v5n2p11: If noun following Hoch
is explicitly plural, it means "all". If it is singular, it
means "each".]" What I am trying to say is "all life is
warfare". And here is the problem.

There is no way, in English nor ta' Hol, to distinguish
between the concept of life and a particular concrete
example of (a) life. So if it pleases the court, I request a
few moments to defend my choice of words. 

A concept is a mental abstraction. The basis of all mental
abstractions are -several- specific concrete examples. You
have a life, as do I and most people on this list. We all
have lives, but we also all have life. So if you use life
(yIn) to refer to the concept, the noun is plural. The
concept covers many different concrete examples, and is
therefore plural.

veS instead of noH: All life is warfare. It is not a
specific concrete war. It is many different wars, fought on
many different fronts, with many different weapons,
requiring many different tactics and skills. As well as
other non combat elements of warfare such as intelligence
gathering, logistics, strategic thinking, alliance
formation, etc. just to name a few.

Welp that is my case. The defense rests.
> > Quj Hoch veS
> Every war plays? This should be <Quj 'oH Hoch noH'e'> - "Each war is a
> game".

Again I argue for "Quj 'oH Hoch veS". "All warfare is a

> > bIQujchugh bISuD
> maj.
> > bIQujbe'chugh bIlujbej
> jIQujbe'chugh vaj jIQapbe'ba', 'ach jIlujbej'a'?

Exactly. However I am wondering if bIQuvHa' would be a
better word. You start off playing the Quj'a', as soon as
you are born. So to stop playing you would, well stop
playing, rather than not play.

> > yIn Quj'a'
> Do you mean the game lives (is alive) or that life is the game? If it's the
> former, this is fine. If it's the latter, then you have to say <Quj'a' 'oH
> yIn'e'>.
The latter.

> > bItIvbe'chugh vas DaQujchu'be'
> <vaj>, not <vas>.

De'wI' ngej veQlargh. 
> > loS 'ay' ghaj Quj
> lu'.

??? "the/a game has four parts." Should be "'ay'mey"
> > Quj 'ay'mey wa'
> > Quj yoS cha'
> > chutmey mIwmey ghap wej
> > QujwI' loS
> I really don't understand what you're going for here.

Each of the above is a item that all games have in common.
Pieces, playing area, rules, and players. It is a numbered
> > Hoch poH logh je che'ronmaj
> I think you meant to say "All of space and time is our battlefield", or
> something similar. That would be <Hoch poH logh je bIH che'ronmaj'e'>.
> > Hoch qo' Qujmaj yoS
> Hoch qo' 'oH Qujmaj yoS'e'


> > maH 'ay'
> 'ay' maH ??? I don't understand this one.
> > maH QujwI'
> <QujwI' maH> is definitely what you want here.

It is the difference between "we are the players" and "the
players are us". I am not sure why one is more right than
the other.
> > Does this say what I intend it to say?
> That depends on what you wanted to say. A lot of it works, but some does
> not. With the "to be" problems fixed, it's pretty good.

Thanks. Should I repost once it is cleaned up? Or is that

> > To introduce myself, I am 38 years old, although I claim
> > bonus years due to former naval service and raising two
> > teenagers. I work at SLAC, which is an atom smasher. rugh
> > wIchenmoH, 'ach juHDaq vInge'laHbe'. I have been playing
> > around with tlhIngan Hol for some time, but only recently
> > decided to get serious about learning it.
> maj.

Well it is a living. I really would like to take some home
though. Probably just as well :)


Back to archive top level