[88617] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: mu'tlheghvam yIlughmoH
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (lojmIt tI'wI'nuv)
Fri Jan 7 13:31:38 2011
From: lojmIt tI'wI'nuv <lojmitti7wi7nuv@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <C305E6BD33E2654DAE1F8F403247B6A60218B08F9318@EVS02.ad.uchicago.edu>
Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2011 13:24:26 -0500
To: "tlhingan-hol@kli.org" <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Are there any canon examples of a question as object as you propose here? Typically, {'e'} represents a sentence, not the answer or response to a sentence, which is what you are suggesting.
You may be completely correct. My only issue is that I don't understand how this is supposed to work.
lojmIt tI'wI'nuv
Sent from my iPod
On Jan 7, 2011, at 10:17 AM, Steven Boozer <sboozer@uchicago.edu> wrote:
> Still another way of asking this question is with a verb {van} "end (an event)":
>
> chay' van bomvam? wej 'e' vISov.
> How does this song end? I don't know [that] yet.
>
>
> HQ 12.2 p.8-9: Generally, one expresses the end of a stretch of time by using a verb rather than a noun. That is, one says "when the month ends" rather than "at the end of the month". The verb for this kind of end is {Dor} [...] When an event over which one has some control ends (one can't cause a month to end), a different verb is used: {van}. This would apply to such things as voyages, battles, plays, operas, stories, and songs. Here, the event (the voyage, the song) doesn't end; the participant in the event or the perpetrator of the event ends it. [...] Note that the voyage and the song cannot end themselves. Someone has to end them. [...]
> There is a difference between the end of the performance of a song or opera or play, indicated by making use of the verbs {van} and {ghang} ["end (an event) prematurely"], and the ending, or final portion, of a song or opera or play itself. For an opera, play, story, speech, and so on, the final portion is its {bertlham}. This word usually refers to the last aria or other musical portion in an opera, last speech in a play, last sentence or so of a story or an address [...] For a song--but only for a song--the final portion is its {'o'megh}. Parallel to {bertlham}, {'o'megh} is the final phrase or so of the song, one that brings the song to a definite conclusion. All songs have endings ({'o'meghmey}), some more elaborate or stirring than others.
>
>
> --
> Voragh
> Ca'Non Master of the Klingons
>
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org [mailto:tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org]
>> On Behalf Of lojmIt tI'wI' nuv
>> Sent: Friday, January 07, 2011 8:17 AM
>> To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
>> Subject: Re: mu'tlheghvam yIlughmoH
>>
>> A more direct way to say this would perhaps be {bomvam 'o'meH
>> vISovbe'.} You seem to go way out of your way to force {'e'} into
>> sentences that don't need it. You also really like pronouns.
>>
>> One of Okrand's goals in designing Klingon was to get rid of the verb
>> "to be", and then working with real scripts, he conceded, "Okay, you
>> can use pronouns for 'to be'." There are not a lot of examples of him
>> using it, and when he does, it tends to be very straightforward, like
>> {tlhIngan maH}. English speakers LOVE the various forms of the word "to
>> be" and "to go" and "to do" and we pad most of our sentence with them.
>>
>> Klingon is not encoded English. It is an alien language. Your mind is
>> supposed to work differently when you are speaking Klingon than it does
>> when you are speaking English. That's the fun part of using it for me.
>> I like having to think differently.
>>
>> Step one is to simplify. Boil the meaning down to its essence, then
>> build a Klingon sentence with that essence, dumping "to be" whenever
>> you can. There are times when it is just the right thing, like
>> {tlhIngan maH}. But much of the time, you don't need "to be". You also
>> usually don't need sentences tied to other sentences. You can simplify
>> things down to nuggets. It's an attitude as much as it is a process.
>>
>> In my opinion.
>>
>> pItlh.
>> lojmIt tI'wI' nuv
>>
>>
>>
>> On Jan 7, 2011, at 8:22 AM, Felix Malmenbeck wrote:
>>
>>>> {nuq 'oH bomvam 'o'megh 'e' wej vISov}
>>> {nuq 'oH bomvam 'o'megh'e'. wej vISov.} DaghItlh 'e' DaHechpu''a'.
>>>
>>> {How does this song end? I don't know yet.}
>>> bIlugh.
>>>
>>> jISIv, lughlaH'a' mu'tlheghmey. jISovchu'be'. lughlaH nuvpu'. 'e'
>> vISov *canon*mo'. ...'ej lughlaHlaw' Sormey.
>>> mu'tlheghmey nuvpu' je vIDelmeH wa' mu' DIvI' Hol vIjatlhtaHvIS. 'a
>> SoSwI' Hol vIjatlhtaHvIS pIm ghu'.
>>> Sov'a' vay'.
>>> ________________________________________
>>> From: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org [tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org] on
>> behalf of Ruben Molina [rmolina@gmail.com]
>>> Sent: Friday, January 07, 2011 04:37
>>> To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
>>> Subject: mu'tlheghvam yIlughmoH
>>>
>>> juppu' Savan,
>>>
>>> {nuq 'oH bomvam 'o'megh 'e' wej vISov} qar'a'
>>> yIlughmoH qarbe'chugh mu'tlheghvam.
>>>
>>> ruben
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
