tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Nov 20 04:29:39 2000

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

RE: KLBC: rIn QoQ wanI'




jatlh quS'a'Qob:

> cha'maH loS Hu', <California>vo' juHwIj vIghoSta'.  jIghIQ 'e' vItIvqu',
> 'ej tugh jIghIQqa'meH pa' vIghoS vIneH.
> 
maj. In the first sentence, you don't need the {-ta'} suffix. My comments
about aspect suffixes are below, after your translation.


> QoQ wanI' wIghoSpa' maqochwI' jIH je, <San Diego> HuDaq Ha'DIbaHpu'
> DIleghta'.  tI'qa' vIghro' rurbogh Ha'DIbaHpu''e' DIleghpu'.  toQmey
> DIleghpu' je.  tera' Ha'DIbaHpu'vam Qanqu' Huvam, 'ej ghochvam wItIvbej.
> 
majQa'. I especially like the fact that you used {Hu} ("zoo"). It's one of
those words that we don't get a chance to use frequently. Comments about
plurals for animals are also below.


> Dun QoQ wanI'.  muchwI'pu' qat bom ghom'a'.
> 
According to page 76 of KGT, "when there is an instrumental component, the
players are said to {qat} the song." So, technically, it sounds like the
subject of the verb should be {muchwI'pu'} ("the musicians"). The object
would be the song, sung by a singer. However, you can argue that in this
case, the choir was augmenting the music, and not vice versa.


> nIteb bom vagh bompu' (wej
> loD, cha' be' je) DIQoy je QoywI'pu'.
> 
You want to put a period before {DIQoy}, since these are two separate
sentences. You could simplify the second sentence to {DIQoy}, or leave it
out altogether, since context makes it clear that you are listening to the
singers.
Also, we don't know whether we're allowed to use {DIQoy QoywI'pu'} to
indicate "We the listeners listened". The prefix {DI-} indicates that the
subject is "we", but the stated subject is {QoywI'pu'} ("the listeners").  


> 'ej bomtaHvIS Hoch, QoywI'pu' DuQ
> QoQ.  QoQ wanI'vamDaq SaH <Philip Glass> je.  rInDI' QoQ wanI',
> qonwI'vaD muchwI'pu'vaD malop QoywI'pu'.
> 
maj.  Dunba' wanI'vam!


> jIlugh'eghmoH: <Santa Monica>Daq qaSbe' QoQ wanI'.  <Costa Mesa>Daq
> qaS.  DopDaq qul yIchenmoH QobDI' ghu'!
> 
qay'be'.


> QInvam 'ay' HochDIch: <much> vIlo' 'e' vIqel, 'ach <QoQ wanI'> vImaS. 
> qech rurchu' mu' chang'engvam 'e' vIHar.
> 
maj. Nice use of the ungrammatical (but sometimes used) word {HochDIch}
("allth").


> ******************************************************************
> 
> Here's what I have attempted to say:
> 
> Twenty-four days ago, I returned home from California.  I greatly
> enjoyed my vacation, and I want to vacation there again soon.
> 
> Before we went to the concert, my friend and I saw the animals at the
> San Diego Zoo.  We saw animals which resemble tika cats.  We also saw
> birds of prey.  This zoo protects these Earth animals, and we certainly
> enjoyed this destination.
> 
> The concert was great.  A large choir accompanied the musicians.  We
> also heard five soloists (three men and two women), and while they sang,
> the audience was touched by the music.  Philip Glass also attended the
> concert.  As soon as the concert ended, the composer and the musicians
> received great applause.
> 
> The concert occured at Costa Mesa, not Santa Monica.  Set fire on the
> side when there is danger!
> 
> Success!
> <my signature>
> 
> ps. I considered using <much>, but I prefer <QoQ wanI'>.  I believe that
> this word pair matches the idea perfectly.
> 
> ******************************************************************
> 
> I hit a few issues while working on this message:
> 
> 1.  I'm still a little unclear on the use of type 7 verb suffixes <-pu'>
> and <-ta'>.  I understand that they imply that a task is completed.  But
> if you are relating events, and you have explicitly stated that the
> events were in the past, is it still necessary to use these suffixes? 
> It seems to me that in relating any past event, every verb should at
> least have the <-pu'> suffix.
> 
Here, for lack of a better word, I'll use the phrase "current time" to
indicate whatever time we are considering. Typically, this "current time"
would be the present, or "now".
However, if I start talking about something that happened last year, then
"last year" becomes the "current time".
For example,
{DaHjaj jISuv} "Today I fight" (The current time is "today")
{wa'ben jISuv} "Last year I fought" (The current time is "last year")
{wa'nem jISuv} "Next year I will fight" (The current time is "next year")


When using the verb suffixes {-ta'} and {-pu'}, they indicate that the verb
is completed in relation to the "current time".
For example, consider the following sequence of 3 sentences (comments in
brackets follow the sentence/translation):

1) {wa'Hu' 'uQ vISop} "Yesterday I ate dinner"
[The time stamp at the beginning of the sentence, "yesterday", sets the
"current time" as "yesterday".]

2) {qagh vISopta'} "I had eaten the serpent worms"
[There is no time stamp on this sentence, so we just assume that it refers
to the "current time", which the previous sentence set to "yesterday". The
suffix {-ta'} indicates, however, that the action was completed at the
"current time", i.e. yesterday. So this sentence would mean something such
as "I already had eaten the serpent worms (at the time I ate dinner
yesterday)."]

3) {vaj chab vISop} "Therefore, I ate a pie"
[The "current time" is still yesterday, so this sentence also takes place
yesterday.]


> 2.  When making animal words plural, is it appropriate to add <-pu'> or
> <-mey>?  I've used <-pu'>, based on TKD pg. 22: "This suffix can be used
> to indicate plurality for Klingons, ... , but not for lower animals of
> any kind, ..."  I'm assuming that my use of <-pu'> for large birds and
> large cats would be appropriate, since these animals seem to be "capable
> of using language," as far as I understand.
> 
To make animals plural, you would use {-mey}. I'm guessing that TKD says
"but not for lower animals of any kind" to make a distinction between
intelligent, humanoid animals (such as Klingons, Humans, etc.) and wild
animals/pets. Bird calls or other forms of animal communication could be
considered "language" by scientists. However, Klingons probably would use
the suffix {-mey} to refer to such animals.


> 3.  I have used <cha'maH loS Hu'> to indicate when this happened.  I've
> seen this used before, but it doesn't seem to be a legal part of the
> sentence, since it is not a clause, it's not an adverbial, and it can't
> stand on its own as a sentence.  Is there a rule I can use to justify
> the use of this?
> 
At the bottom of page 179 in TKD, it mentions time elements. These go at the
beginning of a sentence, before the adverb, and are used to tell the time
that the sentence takes place.
So the following sentences are both ok:
{cha'maH loS Hu' jIghIQ} "24 days ago, I vacationed"
{cha' nem maSuv} "2 years from now, we will fight"

Overall, a good and enjoyable description of your trip. You recognized where
you were having difficulty, which is also good. If there are any other
questions you have about the aspect suffixes, feel free to ask more
questions or send sample sentences that you want me to check.


- taD




Back to archive top level