tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Nov 09 19:56:42 2007
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: vIghro'vetlh
Reading TKD, I see that Okrand says Klingon sentences tend to be
small. He gives examples of joining two separate sentences with
{'e'}. He doesn't give any examples of multiple combinations of {'e'}
conjoined sentences. We know that the first {'e'} refers to the
sentence before it. Does the second {'e'} refer to the middle
sentence, or to the two sentences before it? Does the third {'e'}
refer to the third sentence, or to the three sentences before it? We
don't know. We don't even know if this is grammatically legal.
You have three {'e'} conjunctions, one of which is using {'e'} as the
direct object of a dependent clause. This seems extreme. The point
here is, if you don't need to be extreme, well, you don't need to be
extreme. This sentence doesn't need to be extreme.
ghunchu'wI''s suggestion is much easier to understand; much more
gracefully expressed.
Even in human languages, unnecessary complexity is rarely a good thing.
Doq
On Nov 7, 2007, at 10:43 PM, McArdle wrote:
>
> --- Alan Anderson <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> ja' mI'qey:
>>
>>> "vay' Dalajqang pagh Dalajqangbe' 'e' vIloy 'e'
>>> vInIDDI', Qatlhqu' 'e' vItu'."
>>
>> mu'tlheghvam Qatlh vIyaj. pab 'e' vIHar. nIvbe'
>> 'e' vIHar je.
>>
>> There's a lot going on in this sentence. Break it
>> up.
>>
>> <vay' Dalajqang'a'? jIloynIS. ngeDbe' Qu'wIj.>
>>
>> -- ghunchu'wI'
>>
>
> I suspected someone would say that. Was my attempt
> ungrammatical in Klingon, or just poor style? Human
> languages are generally able to handle this level of
> complexity without much trouble.
>
> -- mI'qey
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>
>