tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Feb 09 11:25:21 2000

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

RE: RE: KLBC cheng Sa' may'bom bom mu' cha'DIch

jatlh J:
>>> ??no' Hol would this be a -bogh clause jatlhtaHbogh    
>>> which are spoken would no' Hol go in front of this clause
>>> and would this all go at the head of the sentence to apply 
>>> to both the stories and the myths???

jIjangmeH jIjatlh:
>> I think the way you have it is just fine. 

jatlh charghwI':
> I waited to hear this before responding. I think this could 
> be more clearly stated. In general, your approach is good. 
> You state clear sentences and allow the listener to follow 
> the implied thread that connects them. This really is a 
> good approach in general. Meanwhile, in this specific case, 
> I think there are better tools available.

> qeylIS lutmey qortar wIchmey je vIqawDI' no' Hol neH vIlo.

> When I remember the stories of Kahless and myths of Kortar 
> I exclusively use the language of our ancestors.

Qapbej qechvam.
 
> The stories and myths don't actually speak, so you can't put a <no' Hol
> jatlhtaHbogh ... > at the beginning, since it would make <lutmey wIchmey
je>
> the subject of <jatlh>. 

> Ummm. You mean that would make them the OBJECT of {jatlh}. 
> Meanwhile, we know that {Hol} is a valid object for 
> {jatlh}, so this does work. You must be tired. This is 
> definitely not a typical error for you.

My error was misunderstanding the original question. I thought Jeanne was
asking about:

no' Hol jatlhtaHbogh qeylIS lutmey qortar wIchmey je vISov jIH.

This would make <lutmey wIchmey je> the *subject* of the <-bogh> clause.
After reading Jeanne's original question again, I realize this was not
really what she meant.

>> If you want to be really precise, you could use this
>> for your second sentence:
>> 
>> luja'lu'meH no'Hol jatlhlu'chugh vIyajtaH.

> My, that's complex. "I am understanding the ancient 
> language which is spoken in order that they are told." Yes, 
> this works, but it is a bit convoluted. Hmmm. But after a 
> little immersion, I start to like it. majQa'. I think it 
> must be lunch time. I'm slow.

Like I said - this works if you wish to be very precise. It is more
complicated and convoluted than casual conversation (or song lyrics)
requires.

> Yes. I'm VERY slow. That's {-chugh}, not {-bogh}. "If an 
> ancient language is used in order that they are told, I 
> continue to understand them."

>> mughnIS pagh.
>> If they [the stories and myths] are told in the ancient 
>> language, I (still) understand them. Nobody needs to translate.
>> 
>> Again, I don't think this is necessary. Your way makes 
>> perfect sense.

> Many ways to say this, obviously.
 
>>> mu'qaD veS vItIv jIH
>>> curse warfare I enjoy it
>> 
>> Good Klingon; questionable English :)

> Yes. Don't bend your English translation to map the Klingon 
> word order. Translate what it means, not what it says. 
 
>>> burgh quD Suqqa'a' reH jIghel
>>> is stomach qud reacquired I always ask
>> 
>> Don't forget the double <'> in <Suqqa''a'>.

> Well, to be technically accurate:

> reH jIghel. jIjatlh burgh quD Suqqa''a'?

I didn't really feel like getting into verbs of speech and such here. Plus,
Jeanne's version actually works with a bit of added punctuation:

burgh quD Suqqa''a'? reH jIghel.
Is it real stomach quD? I always ask.

> I don't really know that {ghel} can take an object. The 
> definition is "ask (a question)". Meanwhile, there is no 
> Klingon noun meaning "question" and Okrand has specifically 
> stated that {ghel} doesn't really work as a word of speech. 
> Even if it did, verbs of speech don't use the quotation as 
> an object. They are just adjacent sentences that are 
> grammatically independent of each other (the sentence 
> stating the speech and the sentence which is the quotation) 
> with no punctuation between them.

> This leaves me thinking that {ghel} is actually a stative or
> intransitive verb and the meaning includes the concept of 
> "ask a question" as we would express it in English. I see 
> it as similar to "have a headache" or "experience an 
> earthquake". These are all intransitive verbs in Klingon. 
> What English takes to be a direct object is handled in 
> Klingon as an implied noun that never exists, all contained 
> in the stative verb.

> Makes you think, don't it? Heh, heh...

I very much like this idea about <ghel>. It seems like we've been on a quest
to find the proper object of <ghel>, and now we can realize that there isn't
one (or at least may not be one) and return to other things.

>>> Hew; mIStaq rur vIngu'laH
>>> statues in the manner of mIStaq I can identify
>> 
>> This doesn't quite work. <rur> is the perfect verb for 
>> "in the manner of", but the grammar doesn't quite work. 
>> This is the perfect place for a <-bogh> clause:
>> 
>> mIStaq rurbogh Hew vIngu'laH.

> Yuck. I suggest:

> mIStaq Hew rurbogh Hew'e' vIngu'laH.

> As originally stated, you are either saying that you 
> recognize statues that resemble mIStaq, or you are saying 
> that you recognize mIStaq, who is resembled by a statue. 
> You want to say that you can recognize a STATUE that 
> resembles mIStaq's statues.

Actually, I was thinking <mIStaq> *was* a famous statue, but it does seem
more likely that <mIStaq> was a sculptor. And while <-'e'> can be used to
identify the head noun of a <-bogh> clause, it is not required. It seems
extremely unlikely that <mIStaq Hew rurbogh Hew vIngu'laH> would be
misunderstood (and my suggestion is just as clear if <mIStaq> is understood
to be a famous statue).
 
>>> romuluS HIq Sorya' HIq vItlhutlhlaH
>>> Romulan ale, Saurian brandy I can drink 
>>> ?? [je] required, or is listing ok
>> 
>> <je> is strictly required, but in poetry and song lyrics you 
>> can get away with dropping it.

> Of course, in poetry and song lyrics you can get away with 
> killing your mother-in-law. All bets are off. This is why I 
> don't edit songs or poems.

Would Klignons consider killing a mother-in-law particularly dishonorable,
or even out of the ordinary? Strange plotline of "You are Coridally Invited
..." aside, I suspect that if she gave sufficient reason and the killing
occurred in honorable combat, nobody would bat an eye.

> ARGH! IS THIS A POEM? AM I IN THE MIDDLE OF EDITING A POEM?

It appears to be a song. It's obviously *not* a translation of Gilbert &
Sullivan's "Modern Major General", but that's where it gets its inspiration.
It doesn't appear that Jeanne's trying to fit it into any particular meter
or rhyme scheme, so you can relax and think of it as a story, charghwI'. 


pagh
Beginners' Grammarian

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

Back to archive top level