tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Sep 06 09:57:34 2000

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

RE: KLBC: nuq as object

Really it\'s getting complicated!

To summarize, here you have the translations to \"What 
do you want to eat?\" proposed till the moment I\'m 
writing this mail:

1- nuq DaSop DaneH.
	First and obvious, but cause of this debate.

2- Soj DaneHbogh yIngu\'!
	Agrees with Klingon mood. I ilke it.

3- bISopmeH nuq DaneH.
4- bISopmeH nuq DamaS.
taD answered to these last proposals I wrote:
>These examples (...) with -meH say that you want 
>something so that you can eat something. Your answer 
>could be either food itself, or an object to use for 
>eating - perhaps you want a {baghneQ} (spoon) so that 
>you can eat.

You\'re right, it\'s always good that someone read over 
your text to correct them. So here you have an 
improvement for these sentences, it\'s based on a change 
from the verbal prefix {bI-} (you/no object, non-object 
prefixes used with transitive verbs emphasizes the 
action) to {Da-} (you/it, so there\'s an object non-
clarified by sentence order but that appears with 
{nuq}):
5- DaSopmeH nuq DaneH.
I translate it literally as \"What do you want to eat 
it?\"

6- nuq DaSopqang.
As taD said it doesn\'t suit to the original English 
sentence.

ghunchu\'wI\' \'utlh said:

>Neither group has a problem with {nuq DaSop 
>DaneH} \"What do you want to eat?\" There was a minor 
>bout a few years ago when we came close to seeing an 
>objection, but it was quickly resolved by the fact 
>that it actually is a question.

Please, can you tell me when was that discussion? I 
usually read over past tlhIngan Hol mailing list 
archives to learn from old debates, but I haven\'t found 
this one. As I said before I don\'t agree with {nuq 
DaSop DaneH} as a question, nor as grammatical,... but 
I\'m a beginner, so I\'m ready to learn Klingon, good 
Klingon, not \"my own version\" of Klingon.

De\'vID said:

> ghaHbe\'wI\':
>>So {nuq DaSop DaneH} and {nuq Datlhutlh DaneH} are 
>>illogical because the main verb, {DaneH}, tells us 
>>you want something (it\'s an affirmation), but the 
>>object sentence is a question (a doubt).
>
>I seem to recall, however, that /nuqneH/ is really 
>just short for /nuq >DaneH/. I could be mistaken 
>though.

It seems right, I never heard this fact, but it seems 
logical. Anyway perhaps that\'s clipped Klingon, because 
this dialect has a tendency to drop verb preffixes in 
imperatives.

--ghaHbe\'wI\'

________________________________________________________________
Per crear el teu e-mail gratuit  : http://www.cataloniamail.com/

Back to archive top level