[89164] in tlhIngan-Hol
RE: nuq bop bom: 'ay' wa'
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Robyn Stewart)
Tue Aug 23 11:37:37 2011
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2011 08:23:16 -0700
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
From: Robyn Stewart <robyn@flyingstart.ca>
In-Reply-To: <000c01cc619a$4f750a30$ee5f1e90$@trimboli.name>
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
At 06:41 23/08/2011, SuStel wrote:
> >>> 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).
Yeah, I've been using aspect suffices only when I wanted to emphasize
or disambiguate. Ironically that probably traces back to one of the
first stories I submitted here, when I went nuts with suffixes and
someone reigned me back.
> >>> 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.
Perhaps I'll just take it out. When something meant to clarify and
expand confuses, it probably doesn't belong there.
> >>> '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.
Ah, now I get it.
> >>> 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.
jIHvaD jatlhchugh, SIbI' Doch bopbogh lut'e' Hev.
> >>> 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}?
bIlugh. qaq.
>SuStel
>http://www.trimboli.name/
- Qov
