tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Feb 15 14:39:55 2007
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Dilbert Comic in Klingon for February 9, 2007
- From: Doq <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Dilbert Comic in Klingon for February 9, 2007
- Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 17:39:23 -0500
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; d=earthlink.net; b=BqybRYcBBSfChF7aYC+NeUP435zVR7VZJVz+iEDfntw8LSOe+U7b+aa5gEHMGpSK; h=Received:Mime-Version:In-Reply-To:References:Content-Type:Message-Id:Content-Transfer-Encoding:From:Subject:Date:To:X-Mailer:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP;
- In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
- References: <[email protected]>
"Now, for the benefit of next year, I have accomplished gathering my
goals." The year does not have to be the recipient in order to be the
benefactor.
You are overly restrictive in your interpretation of the use of {-
vaD}. You CAN use a noun-noun construction, though it is more
ambiguous, but you are not limited to using a noun-noun construction.
It is not your only allowed option, and it is likely not the clearest
way to express the idea.
One of the differences between a language and a code is that while
using a language, you have different options for expressing the same
idea. A code lacks that versatility. Klingon is a language, not a
code for English messages.
There are several different ways of expressing this particular idea.
Off the top of my head:
wa'nem vIqeltaHvIS, DaH ngoQwIj vIgherta'.
ngoQwIj vIgherta'. wa'nem ngoQvam vIta'bej.
DaH wa'nem ngoQ vIta'bogh vIgherta'. (wa'nem is the time stamp for
the relative clause; DaH is the time stamp for the main clause)
wa'nem'e' DaH ngoQwIj vIgherta'. (wa'nem is the topic of the sentence
without an obvious grammatical role in the sentence as required by
English)
DaH wa'nemghoQ vIgherta'. (I don't like this compound noun, but if
someone else came up with it I could only accuse them of
tastelessness and not of violating Klingon grammar)
These are not all particularly palatable, and some would likely look
better with some tweaking and we may argue about their validity, but
few, if any of us can say with authority that they are all definitely
invalid with the certainty that you seem to be expressing. It is a
good thing to accept alternatives.
tlhoy DIvI' Hol vIlo'pu'mo' jItlhIj.
Doq
On Feb 15, 2007, at 3:48 PM, DloraH wrote:
>> DaH wa'nemvaD ngoQmeywIj vIgherta'.
>>
>> poH-Degh 'oHlaH mu' <<nem>>'e' 'ach DIp 'oHmo' <<nem>>, pabvaD DIp
>> motlh DalaH <<nem>> 'ej mojaq <<-vaD>> lo'laH.
>
>
> teH, /nem/Daq /-vaD/ DalanlaHqu'bej, 'ach mu'tlheghvam'e', /gher/
> HevwI' 'oHbe' /nem/'e'. DIp-DIp
> ghom DaneH.
>
>
> Yes, you CAN put -vaD on nem, but in this sentence, nem is not the
> recipient of gher. You want a
> noun-noun construction. "my {one-year-from-now}'s goals", "my
> goals of one-year-from-now".
>
>
> DloraH
>
>
>
>