[349] in tlhIngan-Hol
contest entries
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU)
Tue May 26 16:33:18 1992
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@village.boston.ma.us
Reply-To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@village.boston.ma.us>
From: Ken_Beesley.PARC@xerox.com
To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@village.boston.ma.us>
Date: Tue, 26 May 1992 12:28:00 PDT
Dr. Lawrence Schoen recently sent me a couple of 3-word Klingon sentences
submitted to the Great Affix Contest.
Original message (as transmitted to me):
be'nI'oy'ra'mo ruchlaHbe'qu'bej naDHa'ghachlI'
Claimed translation (again, as transmitted to me):
Your discommendation certainly canNOT procede because of your so-called
loving sisters.
My program's output:
be'nI'oy'ra'mo
*** NONE ***
ruchlaHbe'qu'bej
+ruch-laH~be'-qu'-bej [ they [-obj?] {V} proceed/go_ahead/do_it {VS5}
can/able not emphatic {VS6} certainly/undoubtedly ]
-ruch-laH~be'-qu'-bej [ she/he/it-him/her/it/them {V}
proceed/go_ahead/do_it {VS5} can/able not emphatic {VS6} certainly/undoubtedly
]
*ruch-laH~be'-qu'-bej [ she/he/it [-obj?] {V} proceed/go_ahead/do_it
{VS5} can/able not emphatic {VS6} certainly/undoubtedly ]
6ruch-laH~be'-qu'-bej [ [bare/clipped] {V} proceed/go_ahead/do_it {VS5}
can/able not emphatic {VS6} certainly/undoubtedly ]
ruch-laH~be'-qu'-bej [ they-them {V} proceed/go_ahead/do_it {VS5}
can/able not emphatic {VS6} certainly/undoubtedly ]
naDHa'ghachlI'
*** NONE ***
The first word has a couple of typos (one missing glottal stop at the end, one
extra one after -oy), and should perhaps have been
be'nI'oyra'mo'
or, given the "so-called" in the translation,
be'nI'oyqoqra'mo'
naDHa'ghachlI'
appears to fail because the wrong possessive (-lI', used only for sentient,
language-capable beings) is used. I suggest -lIj
naDHa'ghachlIj
Solutions for these corrected (?) words:
be'nI'oyra'mo'
be'nI'-oy-ra'-mo' [ sister {NS1Sent} endearment {NS4}
your(plur)[sentient] {NS5} due_to/because_of ]
be'nI'oyqoqra'mo'
be'nI'-oy-qoq-ra'-mo' [ sister {NS1Sent} endearment {NS3Sent} so-called
{NS4} your(plur)[sentient] {NS5} due_to/because_of ]
naDHa'ghachlIj
naDHa'ghach-lIj [ discommendation {NS4} your(sing) ]
+naD-Ha'-ghach)-lIj [ they [-obj?] {V} praise/comment/approve
undo/mis-/dis-/wrongly {VS9} -ness/-ity {NS4} your(sing) ]
+naDHa'-ghach)-lIj [ they [-obj?] {V} discommend/disapprove {VS9}
-ness/-ity {NS4} your(sing) ]
-naD-Ha'-ghach)-lIj [ she/he/it-him/her/it/them {V}
praise/comment/approve undo/mis-/dis-/wrongly {VS9} -ness/-ity {NS4} your(sing)
]
-naDHa'-ghach)-lIj [ she/he/it-him/her/it/them {V} discommend/disapprove
{VS9} -ness/-ity {NS4} your(sing) ]
*naD-Ha'-ghach)-lIj [ she/he/it [-obj?] {V} praise/comment/approve
undo/mis-/dis-/wrongly {VS9} -ness/-ity {NS4} your(sing) ]
*naDHa'-ghach)-lIj [ she/he/it [-obj?] {V} discommend/disapprove {VS9}
-ness/-ity {NS4} your(sing) ]
6naD-Ha'-ghach)-lIj [ [bare/clipped] {V} praise/comment/approve
undo/mis-/dis-/wrongly {VS9} -ness/-ity {NS4} your(sing) ]
6naDHa'-ghach)-lIj [ [bare/clipped] {V} discommend/disapprove {VS9}
-ness/-ity {NS4} your(sing) ]
naD-Ha'-ghach)-lIj [ they-them {V} praise/comment/approve
undo/mis-/dis-/wrongly {VS9} -ness/-ity {NS4} your(sing) ]
naDHa'-ghach)-lIj [ they-them {V} discommend/disapprove {VS9} -ness/-ity
{NS4} your(sing) ]
Most of these solutions are spurious, meaning that I need to tighten up the
program. I think that all I need to do is to enforce the following
restriction: -ghach (a nominalizer) cannot cooccur with verbal prefixes. I
already to that for the other nominalizer, -wI', so this shouldn't be hard at
all.
The next three word message (as transmitted to me):
leSHa'wI'Hompu'na'vetlh
rojHa'vIpbe'choHmoHlaHbe'bejqu'taHqu'neS'a'
yInHa'wI''a'pu'qoqchaj'e'
Claimed translation (as transmitted to me):
As for those so-called Slaughterers, honored sir, are those obviously
junior-grade Encouragers STILL so CLEARLY unable to make them bold enough to
initiate hostilities?
leSHa'wI'Hompu'na'vetlh
6leS-Ha'-wI')-Hom|pu'-na'-vetlh [ [bare/clipped] {VI} rest/relax
undo/mis-/dis-/wrongly {VS9} -er {NS1wI'} diminutive | phaser {NS3} definite
{NS4} that/those(distant/re-referenced) ]
6leS-Ha'-wI')-Hom-pu'-na'-vetlh [ [bare/clipped] {VI} rest/relax
undo/mis-/dis-/wrongly {VS9} -er {NS1wI'} diminutive {NS2wI'} plural [sentient
-wI'] {NS3wI'} definite {NS4} that/those(distant/re-referenced) ]
6leS-Ha'-wI')|Hom|pu'-na'-vetlh [ [bare/clipped] {VI} rest/relax
undo/mis-/dis-/wrongly {VS9} -er | bone | phaser {NS3} definite {NS4}
that/those(distant/re-referenced) ]
[My comment on the above: N.B. that pu', with the meaning "phaser," and Hom,
with the meaning "bone," are frequent sources of ambiguity.]
rojHa'vIpbe'choHmoHlaHbe'bejqu'taHqu'neS'a'
+roj-Ha'-vIp~be'-choH-moH]-laH~be'-bej-qu'^taH3-qu'-neS-'a' [ they
[-obj?] {VI} make_peace undo/mis-/dis-/wrongly {VS2} afraid not {VS3}
change/become {VS4} causative {VS5} can/able not {VS6} certainly/undoubtedly
emphatic {VS7} continuous_aspect [on-going] emphatic {VS8} honorific {VS9} ?
[yes/no] ]
-[roj-Ha'-vIp~be'-choH-moH]-laH~be'-bej-qu'^taH3-qu'-neS-'a' [
she/he/it-him/her/it/them {VI} make_peace undo/mis-/dis-/wrongly {VS2} afraid
not {VS3} change/become {VS4} causative {VS5} can/able not {VS6}
certainly/undoubtedly emphatic {VS7} continuous_aspect [on-going] emphatic
{VS8} honorific {VS9} ? [yes/no] ]
*roj-Ha'-vIp~be'-choH-moH]-laH~be'-bej-qu'^taH3-qu'-neS-'a' [ she/he/it
[-obj?] {VI} make_peace undo/mis-/dis-/wrongly {VS2} afraid not {VS3}
change/become {VS4} causative {VS5} can/able not {VS6} certainly/undoubtedly
emphatic {VS7} continuous_aspect [on-going] emphatic {VS8} honorific {VS9} ?
[yes/no] ]
6roj-Ha'-vIp~be'-choH-moH]-laH~be'-bej-qu'^taH3-qu'-neS-'a' [
[bare/clipped] {VI} make_peace undo/mis-/dis-/wrongly {VS2} afraid not {VS3}
change/become {VS4} causative {VS5} can/able not {VS6} certainly/undoubtedly
emphatic {VS7} continuous_aspect [on-going] emphatic {VS8} honorific {VS9} ?
[yes/no] ]
[roj-Ha'-vIp~be'-choH-moH]-laH~be'-bej-qu'^taH3-qu'-neS-'a' [ they-them
{VI} make_peace undo/mis-/dis-/wrongly {VS2} afraid not {VS3} change/become
{VS4} causative {VS5} can/able not {VS6} certainly/undoubtedly emphatic {VS7}
continuous_aspect [on-going] emphatic {VS8} honorific {VS9} ? [yes/no] ]
[Comments on the above: this long word somehow overwhelmed the program running
on Macintosh. I had to transfer the program to a UNIX system running on a SUN
Sparcstation. ]
yInHa'wI''a'pu'qoqchaj'e'
6yIn-Ha'-wI')-'a'|pu'-qoq-chaj-'e' [ [bare/clipped] {VI} live
undo/mis-/dis-/wrongly {VS9} -er {NS1wI'} augmentative | phaser {NS3} so-called
{NS4} their {NS5} [topic] ]
6yIn-Ha'-wI')-'a'|pu'|qoq-chaj-'e' [ [bare/clipped] {VI} live
undo/mis-/dis-/wrongly {VS9} -er {NS1wI'} augmentative | phaser | robot {NS4}
their {NS5} [topic] ]
6yIn-Ha'-wI')-'a'-pu'-qoq-chaj-'e' [ [bare/clipped] {VI} live
undo/mis-/dis-/wrongly {VS9} -er {NS1wI'} augmentative {NS2wI'} plural
[sentient -wI'] {NS3wI'} so-called {NS4} their {NS5} [topic] ]
Can this be matched in any way with the claimed translation?
Got to go,
Ken Beesley
beesley.parc@xerox.com
