[703] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: Re[2]: nuqneH cha'DIch / More questions
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU)
Tue Apr 27 09:20:30 1993
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@village.boston.ma.us
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@village.boston.ma.us
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@village.boston.ma.us
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@village.boston.ma.us
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@village.boston.ma.us
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@village.boston.ma.us
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@village.boston.ma.us
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@village.boston.ma.us
Reply-To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@village.boston.ma.us>
From: Captain Krankor <krankor@codex.prds.cdx.mot.com>
To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@village.boston.ma.us>
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 93 01:33:24 -0400
>>tlhingan HolDaq jIqeqnISbejqu'meH ghItlhHom cha'DIch vIghItlhlI'.
>>ghItlh tIqqu' vIlegh 'e' vIparHa' vIneH. vInuDmeH HolQeD joq cha'
>>vInejtaH. HolQeD 'ar tu'lu'? tlhingan HolDaq jIghItlh 'e' vIparHa'.
-----
>Captain Krankor has suggested I try to correct Admiral Doug's post,
>quoted above. Being barely more than a beginner myself, I'm starting
>to regret that I ventured to correct Doug's first posting, but here
>goes. I will be more verbose than Captain Krankor so you can see
>where I make any mistakes along the way. jItuHrup.
>First sentence is roughly:
> I have written a second (little) message for the purpose that I
> certainly need to practice a lot in Klingon.
>Something about the "jIqeqnISbejqu'meH" bothers me, but I don't see
>anything clearly wrong with it. I might have said "tlhingan Hol
>vIqeqnISbejqu'meH", making "tlhIngan Hol" the object of "qeq".
"jIqeqnISbejqu'meH" bothers me too. However, I don't think lack of
an object is the problem (although I probably would also have used
nachHegh's object approach). The problem here is semantic, not
syntactic-- grammatically it's just fine. It translates as "in
order for me to certainly need to practice". I tend to doubt that
anyone does something in order to need to practice. One needs to
practice, and so one does something in order to practice. In short,
I'm not convinced we want both -nIS and -meH in this one. The
sentence could work with either one alone:
tlhIngan HolDaq jIqeqnISbejqu' vaj ghItlhHom cha'DIch vIghItlhlI'.
or
tlhIngan HolDaq jIqeqmeH ghItlhHom cha'DIch vIghItlhlI'.
Note that I have dropped the -bej and -qu' as well, since they were
modifying the -nIS; leaving them in would substantially change the
meaning.
One could even combine both, something like this:
tlhIngan HolDaq jIqeqmeH (jIqeqnISbejqu'!) ghItlhHom cha'DIch
vIghItlhlI'.
>Second sentence is:
> I want to like to see very long messages.
>Probably doesn't need both the "'e' vIparHa'" and the "vIneH". You
>either want to see or you like to see, but you don't usually want to
>like to see.
True.
>I think the intent of the third sentence is:
> I'm looking for a HolQeD or two in order to examine it.
>The "joq" should be after the second noun: "HolQeD cha' joq". Since
>numbers are used as nouns (TKD p.54) I think it is correct to combine
>a noun and a number this way. I'm not sure if the resulting phrase
>should be considered singular or plural, but luckily "vInejtaH" is
>correct in either case!
HolQeD cha' joq is correct, but possibly a little confusing... until
you get to the joq, it starts to like like it means HolQeD #2. This
could be clarified a bit by making it: wa' HolQeD cha' joq. This
is a matter of personal style.
>The last two sentences are:
> How many HolQeDs are there?
> I like writing in Klingon.
>Both seem ok.
Yep. (ignoring the obvious typo in tlhIngan)
>That's it. However, since Captain Krankor said "there are definitely
>some things to be fixed", and I didn't find many, I'm sure I've missed
>some. Comments are welcome.
You found 3 things. I think 3 things in 5 sentences constitutes
'some'. I didn't say it was 'chock full o' problems' {{:-)
majQa', nachHegh. 'aj Doug je.
--Krankor
