tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Oct 25 18:17:28 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: nID cha' attn:KLBG
>> 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.
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
>>> 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
> 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
<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
And I suggest <Quj 'oH veS'e'>, or maybe <Quj 'oH veS Hoch'e'>. Same reasons
>>> bIQujchugh bISuD
>>> 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.
>>> bItIvbe'chugh vas DaQujchu'be'
>> <vaj>, not <vas>.
> De'wI' ngej veQlargh.
>>> loS 'ay' ghaj Quj
> ??? "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
>>> 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
I could not tell it was a list from the text. Here is my suggestion:
1: Quj yoS
2: chutmey mIwmey ghap
>>> 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'
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.
tlhIngan Hol Mailing List FAQ