[98219] in tlhIngan-Hol

home help back first fref pref prev next nref lref last post

Re: [Tlhingan-hol] The Legend of Gorath part 3

daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Felix Malmenbeck)
Mon Mar 24 07:24:42 2014

From: Felix Malmenbeck <felixm@kth.se>
To: Rohan Fenwick <qeslagh@hotmail.com>, "tlhingan-hol@kli.org"
 <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2014 11:24:13 +0000
In-Reply-To: <BAY179-W90C1D0368B8145304C0C08AA7A0@phx.gbl>
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@kli.org

There is actually one canonical instance of jatlh being used for an "indire=
ct quotation". It's from paq'batlh, which doesn't always conform to standar=
d grammar, but anyhow:

------------------------------------------------------

paq'batlh, paq'raD, Canto 1, Stanzas 2-3:

nuv 'umHa' leghchugh veqlargh
ngoS nuv 'umHa'
net jatlh

Sovbej pagh
'elta' nuv law'
cheghta' pagh

------------------------------------------------------

Those unfit disintegrate
At the sight of Fek'lhr
So it is said

No one knows for sure,
Many have entered,
None have returned.

------------------------------------------------------

________________________________________
From: Rohan Fenwick [qeslagh@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2014 12:11
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Subject: Re: [Tlhingan-hol] The Legend of Gorath part 3

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.

> 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

_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
Tlhingan-hol@kli.org
http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol

home help back first fref pref prev next nref lref last post