tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Aug 29 17:22:30 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: qatlh Qapbe'choH DaH De'wI'mey? :-)
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: KLBC: qatlh Qapbe'choH DaH De'wI'mey? :-)
- Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 16:14:34 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
- Priority: NORMAL
I am going to answer this one because, despite the KLBC, it is
of greater length and complexity than I personally consider
"normal" for that group and I can't see pagh as being
realistically responsible for replying to the normal BG load
PLUS messages of this bulk and complexity. If only two people
started posting like this with KLBC, he'd have his hands full
and probably could not handle everyone else. Three would be
totally unrealistic.
So, I want to help bear the load.
I will certainly accept criticism afterwards if this is a poor
choice on my part. I just honestly think sometimes we expect too
much of the BG. As a sidenote, for real KLBC stuff, it is
generally considered to be proper to include English
translations for all of your stuff so the BG doesn't have to
guess what you are saying. In this case, you speak clearly
enough that this is not so much of an issue... which lends all
the more evidence to the idea that it should not be KLBC.
- charghwI'
On Wed, 25 Aug 1999 22:13:30 +0100 Matt Johnson
<[email protected]> wrote:
> pagh, QaghmeywIj tIlughmoH!
wanI'vamvaD jISap.
> [Couple of vocab queries, too. I've used:
>
> {DaH De'wI'mey} =~ network
I'd suggest {De'wI'mey DaH} might be better. It is an array of
computers, not computers of an array. It is the computers'
array, not the array's computers.
> De' He =~ data cable
> De'wI''a' =~ server [as in network]. {SoSbor'a'} is probably too big.
It is a good thing that you introduce your post with the
specialized vocab you have chosen to use. Realize that these are
not officially recognized uses of these words and nobody should
expect to simply use them this way without this kind of
introduction EVERY TIME you use them like this in a post.
> Do we have any better word for 'cable' than {He}?
Others have suggested {tlhegh} or {'och}. We don't have a word
for "cable" so anything is an adaptation. I'd probably use
something like {QummeH baS tlhegh}, but that's just because when
lacking an actual word I prefer to effectively describe
something instead of using a makeshift shortcut. It is just
personal style, however.
> ==
>
> {qatlh Qapbe'choH DaH De'wI'mey?}
>
> DaH De'wI'mey vIvu' net Sov. vaghHu' qay'qu'qa' DaH.
Do'Ha'.
> wej DaHHommeyDaq De'wI'mey DIlan.
I want to make a comment which is NOT a criticism. Just in case
you didn't know, you could also have stated this as:
wej DaHHomDaq De'wI' DIlan.
When you preceed a noun with a number, it is obviously plural,
so you really don't need a plural suffix. Similarly, when you
have the prefix {DI-} making it obvious that the direct object
is plural, it doesn't need a plural suffix, either. It is not
wrong to use these plural suffixes, but it is definitely
unnecessary. Klingon does not require redundant confirmation
that a noun is plural.
That said, the first noun may actually clarify things if it is
plural because the specific number {wej} is ambiguous at the
beginning of a sentence. It might be the adverb {wej} and not
the number {wej}. Making {DaHHommeyDaq} plural places a slightly
greater suggestion that it is the number instead of the adverb,
though it remains ambiguous.
> {DaHHom wa'} vInuD. DaHHomvamDaq,
> latlh De'wI'vaD QumlaH De'wI'. 'ach {DaHHom cha'}Daq De'wI' QumlaHbe'
> {DaHHom wa'}Daq De'wI'.
I see what you are trying to do here, but you have to realize
that locatives relate to the VERB, not to any NOUN. You can't
refer to a computer that belongs to subnet one as {DaHHom wa'Daq
De'wI'}. As soon as you put {-Daq} on a noun, it's grammatical
function is to tell you where the action of the verb occurs. If
you drop the {-Daq}, you actually get the function you want,
because it then becomes "a computer of subnet one" or "subnet
one's computer".
> lughbe'. qay'bej.
>
> vaj latlh chamwI' vISam. ghu' wIja'chuq.
You can't use the prefix {wI-} with the suffix {-chuq}. By all
indications, {ja'chuq} is not a root verb, despite its entry in
the dictionary. It is almost certainly {ja'} plus {-chuq}. A
better way to say this is: {maja'chuq. ghu' wIqel.}
> qechmey DIghajbe'.
Again, realize that you have the option (but not necessity) of
saying {qech DIghajbe'.} The plural suffix here is unnecessarily
redundant. What you have here is not wrong. I just want to make
it clear that it is also not necessary.
> DaHvam
> wItI'meH, Qaghmaj wInejnIS.
>
> De'wI''a'mey pa' wI'el. Qap De'wI''a'mey 'e' DIbejqu'mo'...
The object of {bej} here is {'e'}, which is singular.
> ..., De' leQmey
> DInuD. lughlaw' Hoch.
{Qap} is arguably a better word choice than {lugh}, but I would
not call this an error.
> De'wI''a'meyDaq nejwI'mey DIchu'. Qapbe'qu'
> nejwI'mey. qay' latlh Doch!
We so frequently use {latlh} as if it were a special word that
is an adjective preceeding another noun that we forget that this
is not the case. {latlh} is a noun. {latlh Doch} can almost
ALWAYS be replaced by {latlh} alone. The only time you really
want to put a noun after {latlh} is if that following noun gives
you some information that a lone {latlh} would not give you,
like in reply to "Do you want another blood wine, or another
blood pie?"
> leQmey waHmeH, jabbI'ID mach DIngeH 'e' wIwuq. jabbI'ID puS polHa' DaH.
> mapIHchoH.
>
> Hemey lo'bogh De' DInuD.
Interesting. You used the plural suffix to indicate that you are
examining the paths and not the data. Clever. I've never seen
this done before, but it works for me.
> He ghorpu' wISamta'.
Either you are talking about surfaces capable of using language,
or you have two main verbs with no established grammar to
explain why. I'm guessing that you either omitted {-bogh} on
{ghorpu'} or you omitted {'e'} between these two verbs. I'd
favor the latter.
> latlh He wIlo'moH DaH.
Okay, first, this is controversial grammar. I'm comfortable with
it, but some others object. We do not have perfect agreement on
how to handle {-moH} added to a verb that already had a direct
object.
That said, if you assume that the person doing the using is the
indirect object, and that the thing being done is the direct
object and that the one causing the doing is the subject, and
you are using the prefix shortcut so you don't use {maHvaD},
then the prefix should be {nu-}, not {wI-}.
> qay'be'choH DaH 'e' wIQub. 'ach mamuj. labHa'taH DaH. mamogh. {wejpuH
> jay'!} jIjatlh.
bImoghba'.
> DaH'a' De'wI'mey vInaw'. latlh De' vIghajnIS, 'ach pagh lI' vItu'.
Again, you have two main verbs with no grammar holding them
together. I think you need {'e'} between {lI'} and {vItu'}.
> vaj pa'vetlh vInuDqa'. ghumHom vIQoylaH. "SaHbe' DaH! jabbI'IDmey
> vIngeHlaHbe'!" jatlh De'wI''a'. jImISqu'. rarwI'mey nuDmeH, De'wI''a'
> vIluH. "Daj. De' He tu'lu'be'! nuqDaq 'oH De' He'e'?!" jIjat. rav vInuD.
> "Ahhh, pa'Daq De' He' tu'lu'!" jIjatlh...
I suspect you are using {pa'} to mean "there" and not the noun
"room". You should not then use {-Daq} on it.
> qatlh Qapbe'choH DaH De'wI'mey? chIch De'wI'mey ghorlaH SaymoH'wI'mey.
> reH Sengqu' SaymoH'wI'mey! :)
tIHoH.
> --
> qonwI'
charghwI' 'utlh