tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Apr 20 19:23:14 2003
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: qatlh vay' vInuQ :)
On Sun, 20 Apr 2003, David Trimboli wrote:
> From: "...Paul" <[email protected]>
> > Exactly -- but how was I to know if that was what you actually intended?
>
> mu'tlhegh'e' vIjatlhmo' rIntaH jay'!
reH bIlughchu' 'e' vIHarbe', 'ej pIj jImughtaHvIS jImujbej 'e' vISov.
reH mughta'ghachwIj DanuDmeH qatlhoblaH, pagh bImugh'eghchegh ghu' wISov
Hoch.
> But your English sentence-which you are including to make it clear what you
> mean-disagrees with this idea. Your English has "If you translate for
> Terrans when you speak in Klingon . . . ." That is, unambiguously,
> /tera'nganvaD bImughchugh tlhIngan Hol DajatlhDI' . . ./. I thought you had
> said /tlhInganvaD/ (I missed the lack of /-vaD/), and thought that
> /bIjatlhDI'/ would be correct. In this case, you need to say /tlhIngan Hol
> DajatlhDI'/.
loQ wImuj SoH jIH je. :)
> Maybe you'll like this better: /bISuD; chaq mISlu'/ "You take a risk;
> someone may be confused." Here, context clearly links the uncertainty of
> /chaq/ with your risk-taking. We know Klingon can imply linked context like
> this: see the section in KGT on similies.
maj... qoj "chaq mISlu' bISuDmo'" vIjatlhlaH'a'?
> SuSvaj is someone else on the list: the person who wrote the original
> sentence who started all of this. He is not me. We just have similar
> names, and sometimes joke about /SuS tuq/.
jImIS -- pongvetlh vIlIjpu'.
> You MUST keep context in mind when writing Klingon. /mutlhegh ghItlh
> SuSvaj'e'/ does mean "SuSvaj writes sentences," among other things, when
> taken out of context, but the context, which has now disappeared through
> snippage, was a statement you made saying it was my sentence. It wasn't. I
> didn't state the original.
chaq ghu' DaDelmeH "-vetlh" Dalo''a'? {{;^)
> Ah. I was under the impression that "be suspect" meant the subject was the
> thing under suspicion. It was always used that way to me during college . .
Hmm... vaj chaq bIlughchu'. jIQochbe'choH jIQubtaHvIS... "pIH" pup law'
"nub" pup puS...
> > There is nothing I know of that says putting /-'e'/ on the object of the
> > verb makes it chuvmey... /Hol'e'/ is the object of /ja'chuq/ -- what is
> > discussed? the language. Language is the object of the discussion. So
> > "we discuss the language would be /Hol'e' wIja'chuq/. The only way I
> > could see it NOT being that way is if you consider /ja'chuq/ to be simply
> > /ja'/ with a suffix -- but it appears together as a specific entry in the
> > TKD (p.90), and I *believe* it was officially noted by Okrand that words
> > like that should be treated as unique words (/lo'laH/ being the usual
> > example...) Tell me if I've misremembered what the ruling was...
>
> You have misremembered. When the dictionary shows verb+suffix, the standard
> interpretation is that it's verb+suffix, not a distinct verb. /lo'laH/ was
> the most obvious EXCEPTION. I'm not sure if Okrand ever stated outright the
> status of /ja'chuq/; I seem to remember that he did, but it wasn't in the
> same post as the others.
Doh! jIqawHa' 'e' vImuS. :)
> Next, and dearer to my heart: who ever said that putting /-'e'/ on a noun
> made it /chuvmey/? It's a noun, plain and simple. It's not the object of
> /ja'chuq/, and it's certainly not the subject. No verb with /-chuq/ on it
> has an object. The meaning of the word is that it is the topic of the
This was because I thought /ja'chuq/ was a legitimate word for "discuss",
which in English would take an object -- I thought you were trying to say
that there was some rule that putting /-'e'/ on a noun made it chuvmey --
but you were actually just pointing out that /-chuq/ verbs don't take an
object.
DaH vISov 'ej Sovlu'DI' rIntaH may' bID.
"Now I know, and knowing is half the battle." ;)
...Paul
** Have a question that reality just can't answer? **
** Visit Project Galactic Guide http://www.galactic-guide.com/ **
"Where are we going, and why am I in this handbasket?"