tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Nov 28 05:52:48 2000
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: KLBC: jIleng 'e' vImuS.
- From: "Stauffer, Tad E (staufte7)" <[email protected]>
- Subject: RE: KLBC: jIleng 'e' vImuS.
- Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 08:50:25 -0500
naQSej said:
> wa'Hu' LondonDaq Wrexhhamvo' vIghospu'
>
Here, you don't need the verb suffix {-pu'}. You used {wa'Hu'} to show that
the action happened yesterday. You would use {-pu'}, as in {vIghoSpu'}, to
indicate that the action had been completed at that time.
{wa'Hu' vIghoS} "Yesterday, I went to it"
{wa'Hu' vIghoSpu'} "Yesterday, I had gone to it" (That is, you had already
gone there when it was yesterday)
Similarly, most of the other {-pu'} suffixes aren't needed in this story.
> (wa' vetlh wej maH
> qelI'qammey).
>
I'm not going to try converting kellicams into meters, so I'll take your
word that 130 kellicams = 161 miles. :-)
Just a note on spelling - "one hundred" is spelled {wa'vatlh}.
> lupwI' tlhegh baS (railway train) vIlu'pu'.
>
The word order is a bit off here. {lupwI' tlhegh baS} means "Transporter's
line metal". You want {baS tlhegh lupwI'}, which would mean "metal line
transporter".
When you have two nouns A and B, then if the Klingon order is {A B}, it
means "A's B" or "the B of A" in English.
For example, {HoD quS} would mean "Captain's chair" or "the chair of the
captain".
Also, here {lu'} is a misspelling. You want {vIlo'} ("I used it").
> BritainDaq
> SoDmey potlh tu'lu'.
>
maj.
> 'ach jar Hu', tlhegh baSvo' Supmo' lupwI',
> Heghpu' nuv law'.
>
{jar Hu'} is a good attempt to say "a month ago", but unfortunately it isn't
quite correct. Although it isn't explained in the Klingon Dictionary, it is
expressed in a different way.
In HolQeD Volume 8 Number 4, we received some new Klingon vocabulary,
including how to say "months ago".
These words are:
{wen} "months ago"
{waQ} "months from now"
This kind of word is used with a number in front to indicate how many
months:
{wa'wen} "one month ago"
{vaghwaQ} "five months from now, five months in the future"
Similarly, {cha'Hu'} is "two days ago, the day before yesterday".
> vaj, Hoch tlheghmey baS waHlu' 'ej QIt lupwI'mey
> jaHnIS.
>
The second sentence has incorrect word order. Klingon word order is
object-verb-subject, and the subject of the sentence is {lupwI'mey}. So you
want:
{QIt jaHnIS lupwI'mey} "The trains need to go slowly"
> Dochmeymo', lengmey Qatlh.
>
Again, the subject of the sentence here is {lengmey}. So you want to say:
{Dochmeymo', Qatlh lengmey} "Because of these things, the journeys were
difficult"
> toH, jav vatlh wa' maH vagh rep juHvo' vItlheDpu'.
>
The prefix on {tlheD} should be {jI-}, since you used the type-5 noun suffix
{-vo'}.
You could use either:
{juH vItlheD} "I departed the home"
or
{juHvo' jItlheD} "I departed from the home"
In the first one, {juH} is the object of the sentence, and would indicate
that you left the house. Perhaps you left the house, but just stood on the
front porch.
In the second one, {juHvo'} isn't the object. Instead, it is telling where
the sentence took place. It would indicate that you left, and went away from
the house. You left and started walking away from the house to go to the
train station.
> motlh wej rep
> taH leng LondonDaq.
>
When you have a time separately at the beginning of a sentence, it indicates
what time the sentence took place.
{DaHjaj}, {wa'leS}, and {cha'vatlh rep} would mean that a sentence took
place "today", "tomorrow", and "at 0200 hours" respectively.
To say that something lasted a certain duration, you can use the word
{qaStaHvIS} ("while (it) occurred"):
{motlh taH London leng, qaStaHvIS wej rep neH}. "Usually the London trip
endures, while only 3 hours occur."
The {qaStaHvIS wej rep neH} ("while only 3 hours occur") part can also go at
the beginning of the sentence, before the main clause.
> wanI'vam, vagh bID rep taHpu'.
>
Again, you can use {qaStaHvIS} to show that the time is how long something
happened.
You could also try rewording it:
{wanI'vam, vagh bID je rep vIpoQ} "This time, I required 5 and a half hours"
> leng juHvo'
> qab puS, leng juHDaq qab law'.
>
{leng juHvo'} and {leng juHDaq} sound odd to me; I would probably interpret
them as "From the trip's home" and "To the trip's home".
Also, usually the order for law'/puS comparisons is the other way around:
{juH leng qab law', London leng qab puS} "The home trip was worse than the
London trip"
> lupwI' qIllu', vaj cha'logh lengwI'
> lupwI'Daq tu'lu'.
>
In the second sentence here, {lupwI'Daq} should come before {lengwI'}. The
main sentence is {lengwI' tu'lu'} ("Travelers were found").
Most adverbials and words with type-5 noun suffixes come before the
object-verb-subject construction.
So the order would be:
{...vaj cha'logh lupwI'Daq lengwI' tu'lu'} "...so in the train there were
travelers twice"
Using {cha'logh} to say that there were double the amount of normal
passengers might not work, however. We don't have a simple way of saying
"twice the amount of something". So you might just have to say something
like "there were a lot of travelers".
Also, there is a word for "passenger" - {raQpo'}.
> wej bID rep jIqamnIS.
>
You want to use {qaStaHvIS} here, to indicate that you were standing for 3
hours (rather than standing at 3 o'clock).
{qaStaHvIS wej rep, jIqamnIS}. "While three hours occurred, I needed to
stand."
> ghogh HablI'meymo',
> jIQonglaHbe' (motlh jIqamvIS, jIQonglaH)
>
One note on the suffix {-vIS} - it is always used with the type-7 suffix
{-taH}. So you have to say {jIqamtaHvIS} ("while I'm standing").
> juH vIpaw cha' maH
> vatlh, vagh maH rep.
>
When you are telling the time that something happened (whether it be the
time of day, the year, etc.), the time word(s) go at the beginning of the
sentence:
{cha'maH vatlh vaghmaH rep, juH vIpaw} "At 2050 hours, I arrived at home"
Since Klingon uses 24-hour military time, 10:50 pm would be 2250 hours -
{cha'maH cha' vatlh vaghmaH rep}.
> jIlengpu'mo', qoH jIHpu'!
>
Here, the use of the verb suffix {-pu'} is good. You just finished saying
that you arrived home at 10:50pm. So, in relation to that time, you had
completed your journey. Therefore, {-pu'} is appropriate.
Similarly, you aren't saying that you were a fool when you arrived home at
10:50. You were foolish earlier in the day, when you decided to travel; so
using {-pu'} in {qoH jIHpu'} is also good.
> tlhIngan jIHchugh, vItIvpu'
>
Again, here the suffix {-pu'} works as you used it. maj.
> ja' naQSej.
>
majQa'. A good story; a bad trip.
-taD
> I am trying to say:
>
> Yesterday I travelled to London from Wrexham (161 miles). I took the
> metal line transport (railway train). There were serious floods in
> Britain. Also, a month ago, because a train derailed (jumped from the
> metal line), many people died. So, every rail is checked, and trains
> must go slowly. Because of these things, journeys were long.
>
> So, at 6.15 I left the house. Usually the journey to London takes 3
> hours. This time, it took 5 and a half hours. The journey home was
> worse. A train was cancelled, so double passengers were in the train. I
> had to stand 3 hours. Because of the mobile phones, I couldn't sleep
> (usually I can sleep standing up). I arrived home at 10.50 p.m. I was
> mad to travel!
>
> If I were a Klingon, I would have enjoyed it.
>