tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Oct 25 18:17:28 1999

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

RE: nID cha' attn:KLBG

DraQoSvaD jIjang:

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

jatlh DraQoS:

> Thanks that I do, now that you mention it.

maj.

>>> 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.

I got that it was the title. qay'be'. The problem is that when you put the
<-vo'> suffix on your own name, it sounds a bit weird. It translates as
something like "From the great game's DraQoS", which is not at all what you
want. It might sound OK with a comma or something to separate the <Quj'a'>
and the <DraQoS>, and it would definitely sound better with the <DraQoS>
*before* the <Quj'a'>. That would be something like "From DraQoS: The Great
Game". You could also consider just <DraQoS Quj'a'> - "DraQoS's great game".
We don't really know how (or if, for that matter) Klingons do titles and
authors.

>>> 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.

DaH jIQochnIS. Klingon does not treat abstract concepts like "life" or
"honor" or "warfare" as plural. They are singular. That's just the way
Klingon works.

> 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.

Since you're talking about life in the abstract, you're clearly talking
about war in the abstract, so <veS> is perfectly appropriate. If you were
talking about specific lives, as I incorrectly assumed you were, then <noH>
would be better.

> Welp that is my case. The defense rests.

After this discussion, I think the best way to phrase this is:

veS 'oH yIn'e' - Life is warfare.

The <Hoch> is unnecessary. It just confuses things. If you really want to
keep it, then put it *after* the noun:

veS 'oH yIn Hoch'e' - All of life is warfare; the entirety of life is
warfare.

<Hoch> placed after a noun means "All of X; the entirety of X".

>>> 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
> game"

And I suggest <Quj 'oH veS'e'>, or maybe <Quj 'oH veS Hoch'e'>. Same reasons
as above.

>>> 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.

<QujHa'> really doesn't work here. It means something like "misplay/play
badly" or "unplay". Just weird. Stopping would be something like
<Qujbe'choH> or <Quj 'e' mev>. <Qujbe'> is best, I think.

>>> 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.

maj.

>>> 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"

Actually, <loS 'ay' ghaj Quj> is fine, and may even be preferable. Plural
suffixes are usually optional in Klingon, and with a number, they become
redundant.

>>> 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
> list.

I could not tell it was a list from the text. Here is my suggestion:

Quj 'ay'mey:
1: Quj yoS
2: chutmey mIwmey ghap
3: QujwI'
4: ???

>>> 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'

> Thanks.

Actually, this one needs the same correction with <Hoch> as above: the
<Hoch> should go after the nouns:

poH logh je Hoch 'oH che'ronmaj'e'
qo' Hoch '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.

I don't want to get into a discussion of the subtleties of the "pronoun as
to be" construction, so I'll just say that pronoun-noun doesn't work while
noun-pronoun does. Klingon just works that way.

>>> 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 enough.

That is entirely up to you. If you have more questions, I'll be happy to
answer them. If not, good job.


pagh
Beginners' Grammarian

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

Back to archive top level