tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Sep 12 12:14:41 2001

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

RE: laj (was Re: jaS bIpotlh

jatlh ghuy'Do:
>batlh ghItlhta' charghwI' quv: >tlhoS jIyajchoH 'e' vIHar.
>
>batlh leSpoHqoq Dabaj. reH qech Qatlh vIQumlI'mo', 'ej naDev Sarmo' laHmey, 
>Hol vIlo'bogh vIlIS. 'ach Dayajchu'be'DI', DamughHa'bej je. yIqImneS!

ghuy'Do, qavuv je jIH, 'a motlh Qatlhbej mu'tlheghmeylIj.  tlhoy Qatlhlaw'.

You tend to, when it's convenient, yet still grammatically correct, as 
checked by your clearly excellent grasp of the grammar, or at least the 
mechanics of Klingon sentences, say, or rather type, you know what I mean, 
since it's in e-mail, things, usually long sentences packed into long 
paragraphs, that might be construed, by some on the list, or at least this 
language list, as you're probably reading more than one (I imagine you 
follow linguistics in general), as being, perhaps, just a little, how can I 
say this, complicated.

bo'Dagh'a' vIlo'ba', 'a Qatlhbej ghItlhmeylIj.  tIngajmoH!  DangajmoHchugh 
'ej DanapmoHchugh tlhIngan Darur.

> >> tIghghomna' lujeSmeH wIvlaHchu' labwI'. > >"In order that they 
>participate a true customsgroup, the transmitter can >perfectly choose."
>
>tlhoS lugh mu'tlhegh Damughbogh. 'ach loQ mu'meyvetlh qech DaSIHnIS -- 
>"tIgh" vIlo'DI', jaS "culture" qaQubmoHta' 'e' vIHech. 'ej nuv ghaH 
>labwI''e'. -pu' vIchelnISpu'. DaH "tlhIngan Hol labwI' ghom" wIjeStaH maH, 
>qar'a'? vaj jIQummeH jIQappu''a'?


Another concern is that you often use constructions that are controversial, 
or speak with a looseness of grammar that makes the reader have to *figure 
out* what you meant -- you didn't necessarily say it that way.  qechmaj 
DISIHnISbe': bIjatlhDI' HIyajmoH.

A few controversial constructions live even in your previous paragraph:

(1) Either you've got a ditransitive verb on the main verb of the second 
half of the last paragraph, or you've made "culture" a header noun, but 
without any indication except context as to what its function in the 
sentence is.  Both possibilities cause arguments around here, and confuse 
people.  And I'm not sure I understand what "I intended to cause you to 
think 'culture' differently" means.  Can you "think 'word'" in Klingon?

(2)Is /jeS/ transitive or not?  A perennial question.

bImuj 'e' vImaqbe'bej.  'a mISmoHlaHbej mu'tlheghlIj.


> >ngeDlaw' jImISchoHmeH Qu'. pIj <<-ghach>> Dalo'. pIjHa' mu'tlhegh 
> >vIyajlaHchu'bogh chenmoH DIpmeyvam.
>
>wejpuH Qu'na'lIj 'oHbe' 'e' vItul! {{:-) QInwIj naQDaq cha'logh neH -ghach 
>vIlo', 'ej wotDaq 'oH tlhejnISba' latlh mojaq. lurDechmo' pa' -taH 
>qImHa'lu', yajlu'taHvIS. HolQeD ghItlhmeyDaq 'e' DalaDlaH je. qawHaqvaD 
>"-ghach" De' yItlhob.


If I read this right, you've said, "Traditionally, nobody pays attention to 
/-taH/ there, and they understand it."  Literally, I see "Because of 
tradition, one ignores /-taH/ there, while one understands."  I think you 
really, really like the relative clauses, and use too many to comprehend 
normally.

jIQochbejqu'!  /-ghach/ Dalo'ta'chugh 'ej SaHchugh /-taH/, vaj potlhbejqu' 
/-taH/ jay'!

Ho'  "admire"
Ho'taH  "admires continuously"
Ho'taHghach  "continuous admiration" (NOT just "admiration" -- it MUST be 
continuous)

If you could ignore the /-taH/, then what's the point of ruling that you 
have to have a suffix anyway?  The suffix MEANS something.

> >chaq jIyaj 'ach *context* vIyajchu'be'mo' jIyajbejbe'.x`
>
>context (chaq qech'a')


chaq, 'a mu'vam yaj Hoch 'e' yIpIHQo'.  Definitely a hindsight word.  It 
could just as easily mean "brilliant idea."


>wIqel, Esperanto nganqoqmo' maQubtaHvIS.


nuqjatlh?  "We consider 'context,' because of the so-called Esperanto 
inhabitants while we are thinking."  I understand that charghwI' was 
pointing out the odd expression of "inhabitant of Esperanto," but your 
present sentence makes no sense to me.  It's all those Type 9 and related 
suffixes: you're expecting us to make the same association with them that 
you do, but that association doesn't actually exist in Klingon.  Your 
sentences might be logically flawless, but we don't have the context 
straight to decode them.


>'a Do'Ha' wa'logh vay' mu'tlhegh DayajHa', wuvbogh mu'tlhegh veb'e' ghIq 
>DalaDDI', ghaytan vaj qaS mISHom mIS mIS'a'. ("vay'" also means 
>"anything").


"But unfortunately you misunderstand anything sentence once, then when you 
read the next sentence which depends on it . . . ."

/vay'/ means "somebody, something, anybody, anything."  It doesn't mean one 
of these things depending on what you expect it to mean in a particular 
sentence, it means the complete concept in common to all these words.  It's 
got four English words defining it, and you can't expect people to try out 
all four just to see which English word you were thinking of: the word 
should make sense without any reference to English at all.

And I don't believe we know for sure that /vay'/ can act like a number 
element, modifying the quantity of a noun.  Klingon doesn't have articles, 
but it sure looks like you're trying to use /vay'/ as an article.  I don't 
think this is correct.  You could easily rephrase this as:

'a wa' mu'tlhegh DayajHa'DI', ghIq wuvbogh mu'tlhegh veb'e' DalaDDI' . . . .


I hope you take all this as constructive criticism, as it was meant to be 
taken.  qavuvbej 'ej quvlIj vItIch 'e' vIHechbe'bejqu'.

SuStel
Stardate 1699.4

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

Back to archive top level