tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Mar 29 05:40:46 2001
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: KLBC: mumerbogh ghommey
- From: "Stauffer, Tad E (staufte7)" <[email protected]>
- Subject: RE: KLBC: mumerbogh ghommey
- Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 08:39:48 -0500
Sydney said:
> law' poQmo'law' pInDaj,
>
I'm assuming that for this part of the sentence, you mean "Because my boss
apparently demands a lot..."?
Watch out for your verb suffix order. {-mo'} is a type-9 verb suffix, and so
it goes after {-law'}, which is a type-6 verb suffix.
Also, *what* does your boss demand a lot of? In English we can leave out the
noun, and just say that he demands "a lot". But in Klingon, we can't just
have "a lot" of something, without saying what the noun is. For example, he
might demand:
{Qu'mey law'} "many tasks"
{butlh law'} "a lot of dirt under fingernails", since "dirt under your
fingernails" represents boldness to a Klingon
> Hoch Hogh maghom [*lIngtaHghach yaS] neH pIn'a'wIj.
> ---
> <*lIngtaHghach> is meant to mean 'production'. I'm sure I'll be
> appropriately whapped if I've mangled the language with this one.
>
When you said {maghom *lIngtaHghach yaS}, I'm guessing that you mean "We
production officers meet". This would make sense to English speakers, since
the prefix indicates "we", and the actual subject is {lIngtaHghach yaS}.
However, I don't think we have seen this usage in canon, so it is possible
that a Klingon would just say "That's ungrammatical". So just be aware that
using a verb prefix to indicate the subject this way hasn't been officially
used.
{lIngtaHghach yaS} works okay for "production officer", but this seems like
a rather vague job title. I don't know what a "production officer" does
exactly, but maybe a more detailed description would work. Maybe something
that describes *what* the officers produce, or what they do. For example,
{ghunwI'} ("programmer"), {chamwI'} ("technician"), or {vu'wI'} ("manager").
Also, don't forget that the noun suffix {-wIj} ("my") is only used for
objects and beings that don't use language. For your boss, you would say
{pIn'a'wI'} ("my master", or maybe in this case "my CEO").
> HoghHu' maghom.
>
Several newer time words for the past/future are explained in HolQeD Vol 8,
#3 on page 3. In summary, it says that for words like {Hu'} ("days ago"),
you add a number in front to indicate how many "days ago". So you could say
{SochHu'} ("seven days ago"). We have words for "days ago" and "years ago",
but nothing specific for "weeks ago". So instead, we use {ret} ("time period
ago"), and add the time period in front. So for your sentence, you could
either say {SochHu'} ("seven days ago"), or {wa' Hogh ret} ("one week period
ago").
> vaj DaHjaj maghomqa' 'e' Hech pIn'a'wIj 'e' vIghojDI', loQ
> jImogh.
>
Again, unless you want to insult your boss, you should use {pIn'a'wI'}
instead of *{pIn'a'wIj}.
Just a stylistic comment: Personally, I'd be more likely to say {'e'
vItu'DI'} ("When I discovered that") rather than {'e' vIghojDI'} ("When I
learned that").
> vaj ghom vIqeq. De'wI' *vIlaghHa'. 'ej jIloS.
[...]
> <*vIlaghHa'>: 'assemble'. I didn't want to use <ghom> again. My real aim
> here is closer to 'gather'. Any suggestions?
>
maj. No problems here.
You don't need to mark {vIlaghHa'} with an asterisk; it's a normal Klingon
word with a prefix and a suffix used correctly. When I read {De'wI'
vIlaghHa'}, I understand it as "I put together a computer". The verb {lagh}
is defined as "take apart, disassemble". So adding {-Ha'} to that would mean
something such as "assemble" or "put back together". If you want to "gather"
multiple computers into a pile, rather than "put them back together in
working order", you might want to use something such as {tay'moH} ("cause to
be together").
> tlhaq jIbej.
>
You are watching the clock, so the prefix that you want to use is "I - it",
which would be {vI-}.
> jIloSqa'. <ghorgh ghom?> jItlhob. <pawDI' pIn'a'> jang *jo*.
[...]
> *jo* is my rendering of my co-worker's name: "Joe". I wouldn't have done
> this if the sounds hadn't been so compatible. Should I not do this?
>
maj.
If you use a name in Klingon, marking it with asterisks is good because it
helps to indicate that you aren't using a Klingon word. If it's a complex
name and doesn't fit Klingon sounds, it is easier to understand if you just
write the English spelling. You could also add asterisks around *jo* in the
example below. Since {jo} is the Klingon word for "resources", this is a
particularly good reason to use asterisks so that people know you're talking
about a name.
> tay' vum jo jIH je.
>
It looks like you're trying to say "Joe and I work together." Unfortunately,
we can't use verbs as adverbials, as you did here. Instead, you could use
two sentences.:
"Joe and I work. We are together." Or you could combine these into one
sentence, by using a type-9 verb suffix such as {-DI'} ("when, as soon as")
or {-vIS} ("while"). For example, "While Joe and I work, we are together."
Since the subjects are "Joe and I", you would use the prefix {ma-},
indicating "We - no object".
> pawbe' pIn'a', vaj DaHjaj maghombe'. chaq wa'leS maghom. Do'Ha'.
>
No grammar problems here. maj.
- taD
-----------------
AIM: Tad Stauffer
ICQ #: 7622618
tlhIngan Hol mailing list FAQ:
http://www.bigfoot.com/~dspeers/klingon/faq.htm