[87397] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: Numbers with pronouns
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Christopher Doty)
Tue Dec 1 16:58:00 2009
In-Reply-To: <f1d476f10912011334n1ca22c1m10b3d1224149e2e6@mail.gmail.com>
From: Christopher Doty <suomichris@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2009 13:55:33 -0800
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 13:34, ghunchu'wI' 'utlh <qunchuy@alcaco.net> wrote:
> The extreme oddness is probably due to the fact that {nItebHa'
> maHtaHvIS} has neither an object nor a locative, which are the only
> two ways TKD describes how to use a pronoun in the sense of "to be".
> The closest thing I can get from this phrase is "Acting in concert,
> while we 'be'..."
I don't know why you've translated it like this, though. <maH>, used
verbally, doesn't mean "we be" (which is not standard English,
although it does occur in some dialects, but with a distinct aspectual
meaning); it means "we are." If you are trying to translate
literally, it should be "Acting in concert, while we are..." But,
again, you've done something of a disservice to the Klingon meaning,
as adverbs in Klingon come first, but move around a lot in English.
Just as one wouldn't translate <pa'qIjDaq jIH> as "In my quarters, I
am being," so too with this example. A better translation, literal
save for the reordering of words to match English syntax, would be
"While we are acting in concert..."
> No, it really doesn't work. The obvious intent is
> {matay'taHvIS} "while we are together". For example, from TKW page
> 209:
See my previous email, sent after you sent this. It appears that
<nItebHa'> and <tay'> have slight meaning differences, and the meaning
of <nItebHa'> seems to work better in this context.
> {wa' Dol nIvDaq matay'DI' maQap}
> "We succeed together in a greater whole."
>
> In general, adding adverbials or time stamps or other
> appropriately-marked nouns at the beginning of a "to be" sentence
> doesn't seem wrong to me: {SuSmo' reH qoH ghaH} "He is always a fool
> because of the wind," or the canon {DaHjaj SuvwI' SoH} "Today you are
> a warrior." It's when the sentence *lacks* the pieces described in TKD
> that it falls short of conveying a proper meaning.
I'm not sure what you think is lacking in <nItebHa' maHtaHvIs>, based
on the examples you give here...
