tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri May 19 16:48:34 2006

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: DIvI' Hol mughmeH: any more

QeS 'utlh ([email protected]) 

jIghItlhpu', jIja':
>But now that I think about it, Type 3 suffixes should be sufficient to deal
>with most English sentence containing "any more". {ta'qa'be'} "he doesn't 
>do
>it any more"

mujang Voragh, ja':
>That's just "he doesn't (didn't/won't) do it again".

Let's say the sentence was {be'nalDaj qIptaH} "he beats his wife". I don't 
have any problem with {be'nalDaj qIpqa'be'} for "he doesn't beat his wife 
any more" (literally, "he doesn't hit his wife again"). It depends on what 
sort of action one is talking about, I suppose. For verbs describing states 
of being without an easily definable beginning and end, like {Doq} or 
{parHa'} (as you point out), {-choH} is definitely the better choice. 
However, for actions like hitting or eating which can be clearly temporally 
defined, {-qa'be'}, or even {-qa'Qo'}, works fine: {ret qagh SoptaH, 'ach 
DaH Sopqa'be'} "he used to eat gagh, but now he doesn't eat it again/any 
more".

>We have only two examples of {-be'} and {-taH} together, but I don't fully 
>understand their use:
>   Daq Sovbejbe'taH qIrq
>   Kirk cannot know the location... ST6

SoQvam vIyajlaHchu'meH DaHjaj ram Hov leng jav vIbejnISqa'. (wa'Hu' 'e' 
vIHech, vaj qay'be'. {{:)

>   tay'taHbe' 'Iw bIQ je
>   Blood and water don't mix. TKW

This *is* peculiar. Maybe the implication is that you can mix blood and 
water, but that they don't stay (continue being) mixed? A literal 
translation might be "blood and water do not stay together".

jIja'taH:
>"more" mughlu'meH, yap {latlh}: "I don't want any more trouble from you"
>'oSlaHchu' <latlh Daqay'moH vIneHbe'>.

mujangtaH Voragh, ja':
>Hmm... What does {latlh} refer to in the Klingon, even implicitly?

Literally, I'd translated it as "I do not want that you cause another 
thing/something else to be a problem". The semantic content is more in the 
verb {qay'moH}, not {latlh}. Perhaps {latlh vay'} would have been better, 
but {latlh} is still a noun and should therefore be able to stand alone as 
the object of a verb. I would argue that in addition to "additional one, 
other one", "something else" could be a valid translation of {latlh}.

>We do have the noun {Seng} "trouble":

I'd forgotten that one. :S Thanks.

>though I'm not sure whether {latlh} "additional one, other one, another 
>one" can be used with "trouble" in Klingon.  All examples I know of refer 
>to countable things or people.  Can {latlh} be used with a mass or abstract 
>noun in Klingon (i.e. "more")?

That's a good question. I don't think I can answer that.

>Perhaps it's best to rephrase this as:
>   bIqay'qa' vIneHbe'.
>   I don't want you to be a problem again.

...or "I don't want you to be a problem any more"? {{:)

QeS 'utlh
tlhIngan Hol yejHaD pabpo' / Grammarian of the Klingon Language Institute


not nItoj Hemey ngo' juppu' ngo' je
(Old roads and old friends will never deceive you)
     - Ubykh Hol vIttlhegh

_________________________________________________________________
realestate.com.au: the biggest address in property   
http://ninemsn.realestate.com.au

Back to archive top level