Re: KLBC: Some Sentences of Varying Difficulty

["Lee Herndon" <maccabeus_the_mad@hotmail.com>]

ghItlh Quvar:

>>I wasn't really sure where to start...
>The most important thing is that you *do* start somewhere. :-)
>And you did a good start!
I doubt there's Klingon for "Thank you", so...Thank you.

>>sentences I came up with and translated.  Let me know if you see any 
>>problems, Quvar, or if you see important issues I've skipped over.
>I will do that with pleasure, as it's my job as BG.
Heh.

>>chalDaq Hoch Sang puyjaq.
>>The nova obliterates everything in the sky.
>That's correct. Although I dunno what this might look like.
What I really wanted to say originally was, "everything around it" or "in 
its vicinity".  But the locatives for "hereabouts", "thereabouts", and 
"everywhere" didn't seem to mesh well with a particular object.  Perhaps you 
could explain.

>>DaHjaj QonoS ghItlhbe'pu'.
>>I did not write in a journal.
>You missed the prefix: "I-him/her/it" {vI-} You need it, because you >have 
>an object: the journal.
va!  I keep forgetting prefixes.  (And I can't find much on the relative 
intensity of curses...so if I just overdid it, oops.)

>The verb {ghItlh} means "to write", and refers to the physical act of 
> >writing. If you write "something", there are other words, like {qon} 
>"record, compose",      >{gher} "formulate, compile, pull together".
*nods*  I should set about making some kind of list/thesaurus.  This is a 
vocabulary problem.

>And in your english translation, you forgot the the word "today".
:D  And after I went to so much trouble to find it....

>   DaHjaj QonoS vIgherpu'be'.
>   Today, I did not formulate a journal.

>>yIQutqu'be'!
>>Don't you dare be vulgar!
>When giving a command to *not* do something, there is a suffix {-Qo'}. >We 
>could say it's the imperative of {-be'}. Read TKD 4.3. "Rovers" for more 
>information.
I read it.  Somehow it slipped my mind, despite the fact that I was looking 
at the adjacent page while I was writing this.

>   yIQutQo'!
>   Don't be vulgar!

>>qagh SoptaH'a' vulqanganvam?
>>This Vulcan eats gagh?
>When you use the #7 continuous-suffix {-taH}, then the question is, if >the 
>vulcan is "continuously" eating, and not more general if he "does" eat 
>Gagh.
*nods*  Okay.

>   qagh SoptaH'a' vulqanganvam?
>   Is this Vulcan eating Gagh?

>   qagh Sop'a' vulqanganvam?
>   Does this Vulcan eat Gagh?

>>cha baHta' chunDabqoqvetlh!
>>That so-called meteor has fired torpedoes!
>Okay, this definitely makes no sense, but it is correct.
:D  Perhaps I need a term for "meteoroid" or "asteroid".  I was thinking 
about a different sci-fi series, the recent "New Jedi Order" Star Wars 
books.  A race called the Yuuzhan Vong has invaded the galaxy, and many of 
their ships appear to be lumps of space rock.  But it could also be the 
result of a tactical officer's misinterpretation of sensor readings.  Either 
way, someone _thought_ the object was space junk and ignored it until it 
opened fire.

>>mawbe'bej ta'! [followed by a hard right cross]
>>The emperor certainly is not crazy!
>     Followed by what?
:D
>A little ' can make a big difference: You wrote {maw}, which is "to 
> >offend". To "be crazy" is {maw'}, with a glottal stop at the end. This is 
>also *heard* when you say it, >so you see that also pronunciation is 
>important.
*nods*  Might be a typo.  Or perhaps I just forgot it.

>>verenganmey tu'lu' jay'!
>>There are &*$@^# Ferengi all over the place!
>To be 100 percent correct, you need to say {lutu'lu'} "someone >discovers 
>them". But this is one of the few mistakes that are somehow "okay" and 
>overseen. [I don't remember >the source for the reason.]
This was something I found standing alone in a related discussion on a 
different topic...4.2.5, Indefinite Subject markers.  I'll look it over more 
carefully.

>>it, but it's not in TKD that I can find.)
>It's in the addendum of TKD, page 185.
I found it.  Right after sending the mail.

>>pawpu' mu'ghomwIj tlhIngan Hol.
>>My Klingon Dictionary has arrived.
>"Klingon Dictionary" is {tlhIngan Hol mu'ghom}, meaning >literally 
>"dictionary of klingon language"
Indeed.  This is one of the things I keep mixing up--the proper order of 
noun-noun constructions.

>>rojmeH jIghoSta'bogh peQubbe'.
>>Do not think that I have come to make peace.
>You've done very well so far, but this one needs some explanations.
I'm not surprised.  I had been looking for something simultaneously Biblical 
and Klingon-sounding, just for kicks, but everything I found was at least 
this complicated.  "Do not think that I have come to bring peace; I bring 
not peace, but a sword."  Is there a general term for "sword" or "blade" 
anywhere, btw?  I found surprisingly few weapon names in the glossary.  
Anyway, it's no surprise if I'm in over my head.

>- first word:
>It is you, who makes peace, so you need the prefix {jI-} "I":          
> >{jIrojmeH}
There it is again...

>- second:
>{ghoS} means "approach, go away from, proceed". Yes, sometimes it can >also 
>mean "come", but that's only another way of saying "approach to here", like 
>in {HIghoS} "come >here" (literally: "proceed towards me")
Vocabulary again.

>Now verb#9 suffix {-bogh}. Since you just received TKD, I suggest you >read 
>section 6.2.3. about "Relative clauses". Briefly, this suffix means "that" 
>in the sense >of "which".
>What you want, is the other "that", like it's used in "I know that I >know 
>nothing."
>For this kind of sentences, in Klingon we use the pronoun {'e'}. You >can 
>read in TKD section 6.2.5. "Sentences as objects".
>I'll explain it very shortly, but I still recommend you read TKD.
I have read it.  I probably didn't read it carefully enough.  I will read it 
again.

>This pronoun {'e'} replaces a sentence, and makes it the object of a >verb 
>like "know", or "see".
>I'll explain with the example from TKD:
>   {qama'pu' DIHoH} "we kill prisoners"
>That's the sentence.
>Next sentence is   {luSov} "they know"
>Now, the object of this sentence is the first sentence, and we'll use >the 
>pronoun {'e'} as the object, like we do it with any other noun:
>   {'e' luSov} "they know that"
>Of course you still need to mention the first sentence - always - >because 
>otherwise how can you know what "they know"?
>   {qama'pu' DIHoH 'e' 1uSov} "They know we kill prisoners."

>(I hope this was not too confusing)

No, not at all.  I may still not _remember_ it, but I understand as I read 
it.

>- third word: Qub.
>{Qub} is just "think", not think something. Actually, when you "think" 
> >that s.th. is, then you do "believe" that it is. And we have a verb for 
>that: {Har} "believe".
>How to tell someone not to do something, I told you above already: use 
> >{-Qo'}.
>The prefix you need here is the imperative one for "you(pl)-it" {yI-}  
> >(the object is {'e'})

>Now let's put all of this together:

>  jIrojmeH jIpaw 'e' yIHarQo'.
>  Do not believe that I arrived to make peace.

maj.


maQ

_________________________________________________________________
Surf the Web without missing calls! Get MSN Broadband. 
http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/freeactivation.asp