[89161] in tlhIngan-Hol
RE: nuq bop bom: 'ay' wa'
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (David Trimboli)
Tue Aug 23 09:59:02 2011
From: "David Trimboli" <david@trimboli.name>
To: <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20110822220343.07eb9670@flyingstart.ca>
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2011 09:41:05 -0400
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
jatlh Qov:
> Thank you so much for these, SuStel. I really appreciate your working
> through it.
qay'be'. jIHvaD Qu' rap Data'pu'.
> I know I am rusty, so I was TRYING to go for quality not
> quantity here, so that these things I have forgotten could be
> corrected.
>>> meHDaq yaHDajDaq ba' vajar HoD.
>>
>> This needs aspect, or else it's automatically not continuous and not
>> completed. Likewise for any verbs that show something happening in the
>> story, but not for verbs that are simply describing the way things
>> are.
>
> I think I need some more help with this. I generally don't put an
> aspect suffix on a verb until I need to contrast it with other action
> in the paragraph. Are you saying that any verb must have an aspect
> suffix? I totally don't remember that. Could you point me at the
> rule? Or is it just that those particular sentences are confusing
> because you can't tell the aspect of the action?
This is a rule that has largely been ignored by even the most veteran of
Klingon speakers. TKD 4.2.7:
The absence of a Type 7 suffix usually means that the action is not
completed and is not continuous (that is, it is not one of the things
indicated by the Type 7 suffixes).
So if {meHDaq ba' vajar HoD}, it means Vajar has not completed sitting
(does {ba'} mean "be seated" or "sit down" or both?), and is not sitting
continuously. You might not use the suffix if for instance you wanted to
discuss the habits of Vajar: {rut meHDaq ba' vajar HoD}. But in your
story you're describing a definite instance of Vajar sitting, which is
probably either completed or continuous (I expect it's {-taH}, given the
context).
>> For instance, {meHDaq yaHDajDaq ba'taH vajar HoD} and (from below)
>> {nIn natlhbogh ngIvmeH DujDaj qelbe'taH HoD}, but {loQ tlhoch'egh
>> qechvetlh} and {pIvchugh Hegh nejbe'}.
>>
>> I won't point out further aspect problems.
>
> I'll revise the next chapter before I send it. Let me know if it's
> better in this .. ahem .. aspect. :-)
>
>>> ghaH tlhopDaq nIn tamey cha' HaStaHom, 'ach nIn natlhbogh ngIvmeH
>>> DujDaj qelbe' HoD.
>>
>>> DujDaj HubtaHvIS Hegh 'e' tul Hoch tlhIngan net Sov. 'a loQ
>>> tlhoch'egh qechvetlh. chIch HeghmeH tlhIngan Suvbe'.
>>
>> "A Klingon doesn't fight, so he can die intentionally."
>
> Ugh, yeah. Thanks.
>
>> Unfortunately your real meaning is a bit harder to do. Maybe {HeghvaD
>> neH Suvbe' tlhIngan}.
>
> That's a lot better.
>
>>> pIvchugh Hegh nejbe' ghaH. QapmeH Suv. yIn Qap chavchoHDI' SuvwI'
>
>> Add some punctuation to that one. At first I thought it meant "when a
>> warrior starts to achieve a life success"?
>
> That's actually what I meant. What other meanings can you get? I guess
> it could mean: yIn SuvwI', Qap chavchoHDI' SuvwI'.
Yes, that's what I thought you meant.
>> Too many possible interpretations!
>
>>> 'ej Hoch jaj yInmeH SuvnISbe'DI',
>>
>> Same clitic {-be'} probably as before.
>
> I'm looking for "When he doesn't need to fight every day in order to
> survive." What do you get from it?
It's saying that his not needing to fight is required to live each day.
The {-be'} you're using applies to the entire clause, not just the verb:
[Hoch jaj yInmeH SuvnIS] -be'
I called it a clitic problem because you're treating {-be'} as if it can
negate entire phrases. (Okrand *does* do this once or twice, as in {Hoch
DaSopbe'chugh batlh bIHeghbe'}, but we have no rules that allow us to do
this ourselves.) English has a clitic: 's. You can apply it to entire
phrases.
>>> may' bopchu'be'bogh yIn'e' qelchoH.
>>
>> Using {-chu'} here seems hyperbolic.
>
> Okay. Life can be about battle without being entirely about battle.
>
>>> wo'vaD qa'vaD quvvaD je Suvba', 'ach wo' qa' je je'meH 'ut je
>>> chavmey'e' Delbe'bogh jagh 'Iw.
>>
>> I hate seeing {Del} and {qel} used generally like this. I'm not clear
>> on what {chavmey'e' Delbe'bogh jagh 'Iw} "achievements which the
>> enemy's blood does not describe" means.
>
> Oh, sad that you don't like it. I was quite fond of it. Maybe you
> prefer chavmey'e' juvbe'bogh jagh 'Iw.
Yes, that seems better. I am reminded of grade-school teachers telling
us never to use the word "thing" in a story.
>>> may' neH buSchugh SuvwI', qanchoHDI' ghaH Hegh nejchoHmo'
>>> yepHa'choH. HoD qan le'yo'mo' Hegh tlhIngan Qup 'ej Duj chIl
>>> tlhIngan wo'.
>>
>> I don't think {chIl} is the right word here. Nothing is misplaced.
>> Maybe {tlhIngan wo'vo' Duj nge'lu'pu'}.
>
> I'll change it to tlhIngan wo' Duj Qawlu'. I appreciate your vigilance
> in preventing the spread of meanings to match English ones.
>>> qaSbe'meH SeQpIr ghItlhmey, HIq qub, QoQ Qatlh, rurbogh Qu' joq
>>> SaHnIS HoD.
>>
>> {rurbogh Qu'}?
>
> "a task that resembles those" - not clear?
Ah, I see. {HIq} and {QoQ} aren't tasks, and the "those" reference to
the previous nouns has been lost. Perhaps {HIq qub, QoQ Qatlh,
rurbogh latlh joq}?
>>> ngervetlh Har vajar. loD qan mojpa' Qu'Hom neH, 'a laD 'e' tIvbe'.
>>
>> Huh? He wants a task before he becomes an old man, but he doesn't
>> like to read? 'utbe' bel, dude.
>
> Heh, that vIttlhegh was actually in a trimmed paragraph. Yeah, hard to
> believe I cut anything from this, I know, but I did.
>>> HIq tlhutlh 'e' tIv 'ach lubelmoH Hoch HIqmey.
>>
>> That should probably be {Hoch HIq}, unless he likes to mix every kind
>> of drink into a cauldron and drink it like that.
>
> Ha ha, probably does, but thanks.
>
>>> qubchugh SaHbe'. HIq tlhutlhtaHvIS bom 'e' tIv. bommey qatchugh QoQ
>>> jan, chu'wI'pu' naD 'ach chuS'ugh Seghmey ngu'laHbe'.
>>>
>>> wa'logh vajar DuQchu' QoQ. wanI' jum 'oH.
>>
>> jum wanI'.
>
> qaq.
>
>>> ngIvmeH DujvamDaq vumchoHpa' vajar, ngaqmeH lupwI'Daq Hung yaS ghaH.
>>
>> Isn't {ngaq} a noun? {ngaq lupwI'}.
>
> bIlugh. ghunchu'wI' caught that one.
>
>>> may'Duj Dor ngaqmeH Duj. nov Duj jonta' chang'eng. may'DujDaq
>>> qama'pu' HochHom luweghlu'
>>
>> HochHom qama'pu'.
>
> Ah yeah, I got that backwards. I'd have to disassemble the prisoners
> for qama'pu' HochHom to make sense.
>
>>> 'ach ngaqmeH Duj bIghHa' machDaq wa' nov tu'lu'. potlhbe' ghaH. loQ
>>> lujoy'ta' 'ach rIQqu'be'. bIghHa'Daq ba' neH. 'IQlaw'. chaq mobmo'
>>> 'IQ. rut bom nov. jatlhtaHvIS ghaH puj ghoghDaj 'ej va[Q]Ha', 'ach
>>> bomchoHDI' rachchoH
>>
>> rach'eghchoH?
>>
>> Is this from the point of view of Vajar? Maybe it should be
>> {rach'eghchoHlaw'}.
>
> bIlugh.
>
>>> 'ej SuS HoS rech.
>>
>> I don't understand this. "and he exhales strong wind." You're not
>> talking about exhaling forcefully (pe'vIl), are you?
>
> I was thinking N-N "the strength of the wind" and didn't notice the
> adjectival read. I'll rework it. Or scrap it.
>
>>> nov Hol yajbe'chu' vajar 'ach ghaH DuQchu' wabmey watlh lIngbogh nov
>>> ghogh. 'avwI'vaD jatlh qama' net tuch. bomchoHDI' nov luqIp 'ej
>>> lutammoH latlh 'avwI' 'e' Sov vajar 'ach vajarvaD pIm bom QIch je,
>>> vaj bom nov 'e' chaw' vajar. rut bompa' pagh bompu'DI' nov loQ
>>> jatlh. jatlhchoHDI' nov reH qu'choH vajar 'ej jach bIjatlh 'e'
>>> yImev.
>>
>> I don't think {jach} is one of the verbs of saying. I think only
>> {jatlh} and {ja'} are.
>
> I'll check ahead for that.
>
>> I'd also consider using clipped Klingon here. I can imagine an
>> annoyed Klingon clipping this to {jatlh 'e' mev}.
>
> lu'.
>
>>> Dugh ghaH 'ach may 'ej naSbe'.
>
>> I found the perspective to be a little confusing. Sometimes the point
>> of view is Vajar's; sometimes it seems to be from an omnicient
>> narrator.
>
> Point taken.
>
>> If the perspective, and the topic of a paragraph, were clearer, you
>> could probably dispense with the many pronouns you've used.
>>
>> I like a story about Klingons not acting out their stereotypes.
--
SuStel
http://www.trimboli.name/
