tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Jun 25 17:18:35 2003
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: SISbogh chal 'e' vImuSHa'bej
Okay, now I'm REALLY confused. Where can I read that prefixes are always required. I'm sure that they're not, but I do trust you, also, SuStel. I see on page 52 that I misread Okrand's examples (I don't think I saw the prefixes there originally). But does it say specifically that prefixes must be used. Dang it! That sort of sucks, SuStel :) If I didn't know a prefix to a sentence, I just used pronouns and no prefixes. Guess I better get learning the prefixes, huh? Also, you said, "lalDan vIpabbe'." toH, mapuplaHbe' maH Hoch :) qaparHa', SuStel! qatlho' je.
David Trimboli <[email protected]> wrote:>From: Klingon Warrior
>
>David Trimboli wrote: (all my responses are marked with this key: <><>)
> >>/tuQ/ is a controversial word. Some think /tuQmoH/ is a separate entity;
>I
>think it's just /tuQ + moH/ with a badly worded translation. Whatever it
>is, you missed the /vI-/ you'd need on it.
>
><><>I thought I accomplished the /vI-/ part of the sentence when I wrote:
>/may'luchwIj tuQmoH
>jIH/. I don't need a prefix if a pronoun is doing the job, qar'a'?
No! The prefix is always required. The pronoun is not.
>Also, you need /HurDaq jIqet/. /Hur/ "outside" is the location of the
>action, so it needs /-Daq/ "locative."
>
><><>I did not realize that the "locative" suffix was needed on locative
>nouns. Thank you. I will
>remember this in the future.
Remember, there are three exceptions: /naDev/, /pa'/, and /Dat/.
> >SISmo', pay' 'ej pIj mev che'ronmeyDaq tIQ SuvtaHbogh vajpu' tIQ
>There are a few problems here. First, you can't join adverbials with /'ej/.
>That's for sentences (or rather, for verb phases).
>
><><>Did not know that...what do I do then? Should I just start the
>sentence /pay' pIj/?
Unfortunately, we don't know for sure. There was a HolQeD article or two
about this some time ago. Our best guess is that you simply stack them up,
yes.
>Second, you can't put
>a locative after the verb. /che'ronmeyDaq mev/, not */mev che'ronmeyDaq/.
>
><><>I think you may have misread my sentence (or rather I miswrote my
>sentence). I wanted to say, "Ancient Warriors who fought on ancient
>battlefields stop..." What I was attempting to do was to have "Ancient
>Warriors who fought on ancient battlefields" as my subject, then have my
>main verb /mev/. I can't do this? Otherwise, I understand about having
>/Daq-/ after the verb.
mev che'ronmey tIQDaq Suvbogh SuvwI'pu' tIQ
Ancient warriors who fought on ancient battlefields stop.
>Third, if you're taking about "on the ancient battlefields," remember that
>Type 5 nouns suffixes like /-Daq/ migrate onto any adjectivally-acting
>verb.
>It's /che'ronmey tIQDaq/, not */che'ronmeyDaq tIQ/. Finally, /vaj/
>doesn't refer to specific warriors, it refers to the concept of being a
>warrior. A specific warrior is "SuvwI'."
>
><><>I purposely placed /Daq-/ on the noun so that I would get this comment.
> I don't know what
>suffixes migrate from the noun to the adjective in Klingon. And where can
>I find this out in TKD or
>KGT?
TKD section 4.4 (page 50). All Type 5 noun suffixes migrate from the noun
to the adjectivally-acting verb.
> Also, I, again, used /vaj/ to create an abstract sense of the nature of a
>warrior. Sort of like saying, "A TRUE Warrior would stop to enjoy the
>rain. This is what a Warrior does."
It sounds like what you want is /SuvwI'na'/ "definite warrior." /vaj/ means
something more like "warrior-ness." "Warrior-ness" doesn't fight on
battlefields, "warriors" do.
> >'ej chal Ho' chaH.
>People often forget the /lu-/ prefix. /chal luHo' chaH/.
>
><><>Why do I need /lu'/? Isn't my sentence, "They admire the sky?" I
>don't want to say, "The sky was admired."
I didn't say /-lu'/, I said /lu-/. It's a verb prefix.
>Daj tIghlIj. SISbogh chal quvmoHlu'pu' not 'e' vIQoy. tlhIngan tIgh
>'oH'a'? Da'ogh'a'?
>
><><>One question: why is /not/ before /'e'/? Should it be, /'e' not
>vIQoy/?
Therein lies another controversy.
According to the rules of TKD, /'e'/ is always the object of a verb. Here's
Klingon sentence structure:
All of those words that aren't objects, verbs, or subjects are when I will
call "Headers." This includes the adverbials, like /not/. If I wanted to
say "I never heard it," I'd use:
not 'oH vIQoy
I never heard it.
Now, substitute /'e'/ "that" for /'oH/ "it," and you get
not 'e' vIQoy
I never heard that . . .
Since /'e'/ always refers to a previous sentence, let's stick it in there:
SISbogh chal quvmoHlu'pu' not 'e' vIQoy
I've never heard that the raining sky is honored by someone.
(Note also the migrated /-pu'/.)
Here it is again, broken into its component sentences:
[SISbogh chal quvmoHlu'pu'] [not 'e' vIQoy]
See how it works? Simple, huh?
Now here's the controversy: in all of canon, Okrand has only used a "header"
on the second verb of a Sentence As Object construction ONCE, and THAT usage
(it's on one of the SkyBox cards) has it like this:
'e'
the way you were doing it.
My guess is that Okrand wasn't sure what to do either, and took a guess. He
probably even fell into the same trap that gets a lot of people: they forget
that /'e'/ is NOT a sentence conjunction, but rather an object pronoun.
Unfortunately, this particular sentence in the canon is, as I recall,
riddled with other grammatical problems (Okrand forgets to migrate the
/-taH/ from the second to the first verb in the construction, for instance).
I don't take any conclusions drawn from that sentence too seriously.
>See, the rain has an oposite effect on me. Rain makes me smile :) The
>bright sky makes you happy, huh? Eh, you were probably born of a clan that
>had water! :)
Pisces jIH.
> But, why did you say you do not honor ancestors?
pagh lalDan vIpab. no' vIquvHa'moHbe', 'a vIquvmoHbe' je.
SuStel
Stardate 3481.8
_________________________________________________________________
Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
Klingon Warrior
taHjaj wo'!
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!