tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Jul 09 21:28:52 2002
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: chotwI'/mang (was: RE: Ten Commandments)
> >KGT p49 says that -chu', when used with some verbs of fighting, implies
> >the fight is to the death. This doesn't work for all fighting verbs, and
> >looking at it now I don't think it works that way with Daw'; but that's
> >I was aiming for; they kill their enemies, and they die doing it. Hmm,
> >might also get the -neS suffix (KGT p49). Daw'chu'neSwI'. But I admit
> >is not the best choice.
> please tell me the section, not the page (the german version has
> another length).
I am not aware that there is a German version of KGT (Klingon for the
> >Because Daj is a "be" verb, a stative verb, we can probably
> >still put it on DoS.
> >qatlh ghIjwI'pu'(vaD) DoS Daj mumojmoH vuDwIj?
> two verbs? "why my opinion makes me to interest a terrorists' target?"
> what's wrong with my interpretation?
/Daj/ is being used as an adjective here. "interesting target".
"Why does my opinion cause me to become an interesting target for the
> >> vaj, nuq 'oS mang.
> >> (so what does a soldier do?)
> Suvghach neH ghachbogh mang('e'), maj SuvwI' ghach mang('e'). 'ach
> SuvwI' ghachbe' mang('e').
> (if a soldier is someone who simply fights, then a soldier is a
> warrior. but a warrior isn't a soldier.
I don't understand your use of /ghach/. It is a suffix that gets attached
to a verb (along with other suffixes) and the whole word becomes a noun.
naDHa' - "discommend" (v)
naDHa'ghach - "discommendation" (n)
Oh, wait... you mean /ghaH/ "he" don't you? And instead of /maj/ you want
In the last sentence, your subjects and objects don't match in the klingon
Suvbogh neH nuv ghaHchugh mang'e', SuvwI' ghaH mang'e'; 'ach mang ghaHbe'
qum toy'bogh SuvwI' ghaH mang'e'.
"A soldier is a warrior that serves a government"
(whether the government is officially recognized or not)
> > > vaj, qatlh HeHmoHwI' chotwI' je rapbe'.
> >> (so why killing and murdering isn't the same thing?)
> >Object-Verb-Subject. What's not being the same?
> >Why do you have -moH on what I guess is suppose to be HoH?
> "cause to kill".
> >vay' HoHlaH nuv 'ej chotbe'.
> i wanted to say: "HeghmoHwI'", but of cause "HeHwI'" works, too.
> i should have said:
> qatlh rapbe' HeHwI' chotwI' je.
> (why a killer and a murderer aren't the same thing?)
HeH is "edge"
HoH is "kill"
> >jIjatlh /mang jIH. nIHoH ghIjwI'pu' chaq 'e' vIchaw'/.
> ? "i say: i'm a soldier. i allow that maybe terrorists kill you.
> ("kill you" is offensive, according my e-mail program. was this an
> chaw'lIj tlhob'a' ghIjwI'pu'.
> (do terrorists ask your permission?)
You, at that time, said that soldiers are murderers.
I said "I am a soldier. Perhaps I should allow the terrorists to kill
you.", as opposed to me (attempting to) killing them first.
> >bIjatlh /qatlh muHoH neH ghIjwI'pu'?/.
> >choyajHa'law'. DuQanmeH SaHbe'chugh negh, nIHoHlaH ghIjwI'pu'. qatlh
> >neH ghIjwI'pu'? meqchaj vISovbe'. Hoch HoH neH ghIjwI'pu'. Qe'Daq
> >bISaHchugh SoH, nIHoH neH. DaHjaj ghIjwI'pu' law' lutu'lu'. jey negh
> >nID negh. jeymeH, chaq ghIjwI'pu' law' HoHnIS negh. QanmeH 'ej HubmeH
> >HoHchugh mang (vay' joq), chotbe'.
> (you apparently misunderstand me. if soldiers do not care in order to
> protect you, the terrorists can kill you.
"If soldiers are not present to protect you, the terrorists can kill you."
> why terrorists want to kill
> you? i don't know their reason. terrorists want to kill everyone. if
> you're in a restaurant, they want to kill you. today there are many
> terrorists. soldiers try to defeat them. in order to defeat them,
> soldiers may have to kill many terrorists. if a soldier (or somebody
> (else)) kills in order to protect and to defend, he doesn't murder.)
> maj. jIQochbe'.
> (ok. i agree to this.)
> 'ach nIHegh nID ghIjwI'pu'. vIlaHchugh, vIHeghpa', meq vISov vIneH'a'.
> (but terrorists want to kill you. don't you want to know the reason
> before you kill them, if you can?)
Hegh is "die". HoH is "kill".
The subject in the prefix vI- is "I", not "you".
/laH/ is a noun and a verb suffix, not a verb on its own.
meqchaj vISov vIneHbej.
'utchugh, yIHub; ghIq meqchaj yIghoj; ghIq 'utchugh, yIHIv.
meqchaj vISovlaw' 'e' vIHar. meqchaj vIvuvlaH. meqchaj luHarchu'qu'mo',
vIHoHnISchugh, batlh Hegh.
> >pupbe' negh. pupbe' qo'vam.
> (soldiers aren't perfect. this world isn't perfect.)
> >SuvwI' quv qo' qaq law' veS quvHa' qo' qaq puS.
> (the world of honor of a warrior is more preferable than the world of
> the unhonor of war.)
"A world of honored warriors is more preferable than a world of dishonored
> (i agree.)
> >'ach qo'vamDaq qabwI' lutu'lu'. 'ut negh.
> (but there are bad guys in this world. soldiers are neccessary.)
> hm. HISlaH. 'ej luDwIj 'oH qabwI' chaH HotlaHbe'ghach('e') 'e'('e').
> (hm. yes. and it's my opinion that it's those who are incabable of
> feeling that are bad guys.)
"opinion" is /vuD/.
The pronoun 'e' can be only an object, not a subject. So switch your object
and subject, making vuDwIj the subject.
qabwI' chaH HotlaHbe'bogh nuv'e' 'e' 'oH vuDwIj'e'.
"The people which can not feel, they are the bad guys. My opinion is that."
But then we have the problem with /Hot/. /Hot/ is "touch, feel" as in
placing your hand on the surface of the table; you 'feel' the table.
We don't have a word for "feel" in the emotional sense.
> reH HotnIS SuvwI'.
> (a warrior always have to feel.)
Same with /Hot/.
> >chotlaH negh; 'ach chotlaH vay'! chotlaHtaH mang ghaHbe'bogh vay'!
> >chotwI' jIHbe'.
> (a soldier can murder. but anyone can murder! anyone who's not a
> soldier continues to be able to kill.)
> >wo'DajvaD Suv tlhIngan SuvwI'.
> (a klingon warrior fights for his empire.)
> >SuvwI' jIH. wo'wIjvaD jISuv jIH.
> (i'm a warrior. i fight for my empire.)
> >chunwI' DIvwI' je wIv Qun.
> (god selects the leaders and the innocent.)
/Dev/ is "lead". /DIv/ is "guilty".
"God will choose the guilty and the innocent."
> DaH jIQoch.
> (now i disagree.)
> i don't believe that god wants us to form empires,
Which is why I say He will choose who is who.
> thank you for the conversation.
How long have you been studying klingon?
You did quite well in this conversation.
A few misunderstandings, but it went well.