[98218] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] The Legend of Gorath part 3
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Rohan Fenwick)
Mon Mar 24 07:12:08 2014
From: Rohan Fenwick <qeslagh@hotmail.com>
To: "tlhingan-hol@kli.org" <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2014 21:11:39 +1000
In-Reply-To: <8D1151CD984E2E1-1860-50FD9@webmail-d223.sysops.aol.com>
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@kli.org
ghItlhpu' gheyIl, jatlh:
> I'm not completely clear on which speech verbs use 'e' and which do not. =
> Does it depend on whether it's directly quoted speech or not. =
> =
> {yIH vImuS ja'} "I hate tribbles, he said" =
> {yIH muS 'e' ja'} "He said that he hates tribbles" =
As Qov has said, {jatlh} and {ja'} can be used for direct quoting of speech=
. We don't have any examples of indirect speech with {jatlh} and {ja'}, but=
we do have a couple with {tlhob} in the paq'batlh and I don't see any reas=
on why {jatlh} and {ja'} couldn't do the same thing:
molor luSuvmeH / nuHmeychaj Suq / =92e=92 tlhob qeylIS
"Kahless asks that they take up their weapons to fight Molor" (paq'raD 6.10=
-12)
> Regarding noun-noun constructions, it would seem that a possessive =
> should goes on the 2nd noun. {'Iw HIqDaj} sounds so much more correct =
> than the macabre {'IwDaj HIq}. =
As Qov has pointed out, it depends on your meaning. {'Iw HIqDaj} is "his bl=
oodwine". My immediate first thought on {'IwDaj HIq} was "his blood alcohol=
content"; that is, "the alcohol of his blood".
More pedantically, {'Iw HIq} is "wine of blood", so {'Iw HIqDaj} is "his wi=
ne of blood", and {'IwDaj HIq} is "wine of his blood".
> I had written {HoSwIJ Hoch} but perhaps {HoS HochwIj} is more correct? =
Literally, {HoS HochwIj} translates to "my all of strength", which doesn't =
make a great deal of sense.
> About the alternative {HoSwIj naQ}. Does the possessive go on the noun =
> like that, or on the verb-adjective as in {HoS naQwIj} ? =
It does; only type 5 suffixes go on the adjective: {HoSwIj naQmo'} "because=
of all of my strength".
> I have from HQ 10.2 that {pe'vIl roS} is an adverbial idiom to convey =
> agile, nimble or spry. =
It is an idiom, but it's not adverbial: it's an adverb with a verb, so the =
meaning is more "be agile, be nimble, be spry". {pe'vIl jIroS} "I am agile"=
, {pe'vIl bIroS} "you are agile", and so forth.
> Given that, I do prefer your rendering with nouns - the repetition is =
> quite satisfying. =
tlho'. :) Such repetition is typical of Klingon prose.
> I take your point about my use of {tlhop'a'}. =
> Are there any restrictions to placing noun suffixes on pronouns? =
Not formally, but most of them don't make a great deal of sense: ??{SoHmey}=
"youse", ??{maHwIj} "our us", and =
> Could I say {SoH'a' tlhop} "in front of your greatness"? =
> How about belittling someone with {-Hom} on a pronoun? =
The augmentative and diminutive suffixes aren't honourific or derogatory in=
nature, so the metaphorical sense is really lost in the Klingon.
> I think what I meant to say was {HoSghajchu' 'e' DavItchugh} "If you =
> tell the truth that he is so powerful" =
Like Qov, I'm not sure about {vIt} used in this way, but I'm content to let=
it be.
=A0
> You suggested {HoSghajchu' 'e' vIvoqchugh}, but {voq} doesn't sit quite =
> right with me. How about {HoSghajchu' 'e' vIHarchugh} ? =
Also fine.
> As always, murach QaHlIj. =
qaQaHlaHpu'mo' jIbelqu'. :)
QeS =
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
Tlhingan-hol@kli.org
http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
