tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Sep 03 08:50:59 2010

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: gha'tlhIq

lojmIt tI'wI' nuv ([email protected]) 

The time stamp doesn't work for me. {tujbogh pem nI' po} has the adjective {nI'} between two nouns that I would otherwise take to be a noun-noun construction. That doesn't work. There can be no words between words in a noun-noun construction.

Perhaps you are trying to pack too much into one sentence. Klingons often use multiple sentences to express what English speakers put into more complex sentences. In this case, you've compounded the challenge by choosing to translate a very long sentence fragment. It's hard to check grammar on a translation of something that was not originally a grammatical sentence.

pItlh.
lojmIt tI'wI' nuv



On Sep 2, 2010, at 6:50 PM, Jeremy Silver wrote:

> Thanks for all the responses.
> 
> I think I went with the following in the end but I'm finding better ways to 
> express parts of it all the time.
> *tujbogh pem nI' po 'I'wIjDaq SuDqu'bogh DochHom'e' tlher vItu'bogh gha'tlhIq*
> 
> I think this was a fun learning experience for me, and I hope I'm not the only 
> one that learned something new about the tools available to express something 
> in a more meaningful and clear way. Tools that make you think darn that's a 
> simple and elegant solution - wish I'd thought of it.
> 
> I certainly never thought to use an adjective with a relative clause, I reckon 
> I was too rigidly using the KGT yellow tea "recipe". I guess if your only tool 
> is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.
> I didn't think to use *thlerwI'* to describe a lump of something either.
> 
> I admit to being a little confused by the *poH tuj bI'reS* summer solstice 
> translation, as *bI'reS* is defined a the beginning/start of something. Guess 
> it's enshrined in canon now.
> 
> I found the insights into the use of noun-noun constructions valuable too, and 
> I wondered about some things.
> 
> I noticed the use of *poH tuj bI'reS po* seemed to create a noun-noun-noun 
> construction.
> Is this truly a noun-noun-noun? Or is this one noun-noun becoming a noun-
> phrase. This noun-phrase in turn becomes a noun which is part of another noun-
> noun construction?
> 
> As there are different rules as to what affixes you can use in the different nouns 
> in a noun-noun construction, this may become relevant. I think the rule from 
> TKD was that you can only add type 5 noun suffixes to the second noun. If you 
> add more nouns, would that rule change to the last noun?
> 
> Is a noun-noun-noun-noun construction possible? If I wanted to (go nuts and) 
> express multiple relationships say, morning of the day of the middle of the 
> summer and rendered as:
> *poH tuj botlh pem po*
> 
> I recall Voragh's use if the word *wa'* to indicate any one day, so if we just 
> have to add that to add more complexity.
> 
> *poH tuj botlh pem wa' po*
> 
> Can *botlh* represent both temporal and spatial centre/middle?
> Middle of an object versus middle of a time period?
> 
> Can the type 5 noun suffix -Daq be used with temporal nouns as well as 
> spatial/locative?
> e.g. *poDaq* for in the morning. Or *pemDaq* in the daytime.
> Would it even be needed as the whole thing is a time/date-stamp?
> 
> Is something like the following possible?
> *poH tuj botlhDaq pem wa' po*
> Morning of one day in/at/around the middle of the summer.
> 
> Thanks,
> mupwI'
> 
> 
> 
>

Back to archive top level