tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Mar 22 21:02:16 2001
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: KLBC: Patience makes perfect
I definitely agree with ghunchu'wI'. If the grammar is so simple, then why
do so many people make so many mistakes using it? Why do so many people
(including you, Robert, and sometimes me) offer very badly written Klingon
examples?
Grammer is a complex set of simple rules. It is the interaction of these
simple rules that quickly become complex. That's why the grammar isn't as
easy as it first appears to be. If it were, then you'd be better at it by
now.
SarrIS
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alan Anderson [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2001 11:25 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: KLBC: Patience makes perfect
>
>
> ja' Robert Bracey <[email protected]>:
> >qesDajvad Qon jabbI'IDmey JIlad.
> >I read Qon's posting for his suggestions.
>
> mujlaw' <-vaD>. pagh Hev qeSDaj. qaq <-mo'> 'e' vIchup.
>
> I don't think {-vaD} is the suffix you wanted. The advice isn't receiving
> anything. This use of the English word "for" apparently means something
> close to "regarding" or "concerning". Try the suffix {-mo'} "because of".
>
> >ngeDmo' tlhingan Hol pab tlhIngan Hol
> >mu'tey lo'laHlaw' law' pab lo'laHlaw'pus.
> >Because Klingon Grammar is easy
> >Klingon Vocabulary seems more valuable than the Grammar.
>
> bepbe' taD, 'ach jIbepqang jIH. <lo'laH>Daq <-law'> Dalanmo', Huj
> mu'tlhegh. nItnISlaw' <A Q law' B Q puS> wot (chaq lengwI'mey vIlaj).
> mu'mey DaghItlhbogh yajlu'bej, 'ach pabHa' 'e' vIHar.
>
> taD didn't complain about your putting the suffix {-law'} on {lo'laH} in a
> comparative construction, but I will. The formula is quite rigid, and I
> believe the verb of quality should not be modified (except *maybe* by
> rovers). Yes, what you wrote is understandable, and has basically an
> unambiguous meaning, but I don't think it's quite grammatically correct.
>
> 'ej bIchovHa' 'e' vIHar. :) napba' tlhIngan Hol pab 'ej ngeD, 'ach
> potlhchu'. nom mu'tay' ghojlu' Hol lo'lu'taHvIS. machqu' tlhIngan Hol
> mu'tay' net Sov. mu' puS ghovbe'lu'chugh, mu'mey Summo' pIj qech loylu'.
> 'ej mu'mey mughlaH De'wI'mey'e' jay'. DaHjaj mu'tlhegh yajlaH ghot neH.
> mu'ghomDaq mu'mey SamlaH laDwI', 'ach yabDaq pab 'uchnIS.
>
> I also disagree with your assessment of the relative value of grammar and
> vocabulary. Klingon grammar is simple and easy, but it is of paramount
> importance. Vocabulary comes almost automatically from using the
> language.
> After all, the Klingon vocabulary is quite small. An unfamiliar word can
> often be understood from context. And vocabulary is so trivial
> that even a
> computer can translate words! :) At present, only a person can understand
> a sentence. Words can be found in the dictionary, but the grammar must be
> held in the reader's head.
>
> >Can anyone suggest a better word than valuable lo'laH?
>
> {potlh} "be important", perhaps?
> Or, given my contradictory viewpoint, {ram} "be trivial". :-)
>
> -- ghunchu'wI' 'utlh
>
>