[89480] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: nuq bop bom: 'ay' wa'maH loS
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Rohan Fenwick - QeS 'utlh)
Wed Sep 7 07:13:05 2011
From: Rohan Fenwick - QeS 'utlh <qeslagh@hotmail.com>
To: <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2011 21:05:28 +1000
In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20110906081555.04cd5500@flyingstart.ca>
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
tIqqu'choHpu' QInvam. tlhoy jIjatlh.
jIjatlhpu':
> wej 'ay'Hommey chu' vIlaDbe'pu'mo' jItlhIj.
mujang Qov:
> qay'be'. lut vIlI'taHbogh laDlaHtaHchugh vay' Doj ghaH.
vIlaDtaH 'e' vIHechbej! DaH jImevlaHbe' lut 'ay'mey 'Iq vIlaDta'mo'...
jIH:
> (Qu'wIjvaD jIvummeH, qumwIj woj Hap woj je yejHaDDaq jIHtaH.
Qov:
> woj vIqawHa'be' 'e' vI'olmeH mu'ghom vIlaDta'! <woj Hap> 'e' Hechbej'a'?!
HIja'. I meant "radioactive matter": not that the matter is *made* of radiation,
but it's still in one sense "radiation matter". I guess woj tlhuDbogh Hap'e' would
have been much clearer.
Qov:
> Daj tlhIngan Hol vIlo'taHvIS jI*be subtle*nISbe'. vaj vIrarmeH
> HanDogh, tlhIngan HoD DeS, nov HoD DeSDu', ghe'naQ loD DeSDu' je
> vIQIH. Hmm, DeSDu' vIQIH 'e' vItIv neH.
chaq Sar DanejnIS. porgh latlh 'ay'mey law' lutu'lu'!
jIH:
> (SuD wa' DIr Segh 'ej qIj latlh DIr Segh 'e' Dajatlh 'e' vIQub, jIqawchu'chugh
> ('ach pupHa'chu'qu' yabwIj qawHaq).
Qov:
> "Hurgh" jIjatlh. 'ach qIj 'eSSIm DIr. jIHvaD Hurgh Hoch tlhIngan DIr: rut
> Hurghqu'. not SuD!
Doq'a' SuvwI'? {{:)
qay'be'. DIr qIjchoHmoHlu'pu'bogh 'ay'mey leghlaw'pu' yabwIj. DIr meQlu'pu'bogh,
DIr nguvmoHlu'pu'bogh rop ghap. 'ach pagh yIchoH; povqu'taH ('ej DeSDu'vetlh
choHpu'bogh wanI''e' muSIvmoHbej).
Qov:
> nuq mI'vaD Huch vItogh DaneH?"[3]
jIH:
> I found this a little odd without the footnote, but like you say, it's likely
> that Klingons don't talk much about this kind of thing.
Qov:
> Hey if you or anyone submits a superior version of "Captain, which
> account should I bill these mission expenses to?" it will go straight
> into the story.
va! Qatlhbej. Especially considering how little vocabulary we have for economics.
Heck, we only just received {wel} at qep'a'. Were I writing this idea (which I'm
not, so feel free to say piffle) I guess I'd phrase it as: nuqvo' Huch vIDIlmoH
DaneH? "Where do you want me to cause the money to be paid from?" but I did get
the general gist from your sentence anyway, so there's no real need to change it.
Qov:
> ghochmajDaq rep 'ar wIbav 'e' DaHech?"
jIH:
> It's weird - we have no canon for this sort of sentence, but every time I go to
> say "What do you want to do?" I *always* produce {nuq Data' DaneH?}.
Qov:
> Yeah, there have been those who argue stringently against it, but I
> think almost everyone does it.
For sure. I've tried to purge these from writing for years, but I inadvertently
dropped one at the first night of qep'a' in my very first conversation in Klingon.
I was kind of surprised at how naturally it seemed to come, too.
> so this one crept in without my thinking about it. Back when the list
> was busier and we had new people expounding the old ideas all the
> time it had a name, QAO -- question as object.
I've been around long enough to remember those days. :)
> The problem is, are we doing it because the relative pronouns are the same in
> English as Klingon so it sounds natural to us, or are we doing it because it's
> right for the language.
I also seem to remember a problem with trying to solve the QAO argument was that
"QAO" really meant two different types of construction. There was the form where
the question word was acting like a relative pronoun - like: ??'Iv Daleghpu' 'e'
vISov "I know who you have seen" - and another, where the whole sentence is still
a question and the question word is behaving as such, but is being raised out of
the clause being governed by 'e': like yours, rep 'ar wIbav 'e' DaHech? "how many
hours do you intend for us to orbit?". That's not a relative sentence and it's
the type of "question as object" I'd be more willing to accept.
But anyway, I won't rehash the same tired old arguments here. They've been done
to death and I don't think the canon since then has offered any help.
> I also try really hard to put antecedents before pronouns even if it seems
> backwards.
>
> Ghutar started cleaning his teeth
> ghutar Ho'Du' Say'choHmoH - yes
See, here I'd have to disagree. To me that reads like it could just as easily be
someone else cleaning Ghutar's teeth, and that's how I'd interpret it at first.
The OVS word order of Klingon means that every sentence with an overt subject has
to have an antecedent after its anaphor, so I guess I think of Klingon as being
much more free with cataphora than English is. 'ach vuDwIj neH 'oH.
Qov:
> tlhoy ngajchugh poH wejleS yuQDaq wISaq.
jIH:
> Hm. Does Saq work like a verb of motion in this way?
Qov:
> [wejleS yuQDaq wISaq] - in three days we will land it on a planet
Oh! I see what you meant. I thought you were trying to make Saq work like jaH
in the direct-object-marked-with-Daq sense, like yuQDaq wIjaH "we go to the
planet". Forget I said anything about ba', then...
> Is Saq not transitive? Should I say maSaq or wISaqmoH?
Yep, I think so. In HolQeD 10:4 Marc talks about bird vocabulary, and he notes
the verbs Saq and tlhot are used in relation to birds landing, which is usually
an intransitive sense. I think maSaq would be best.
Qov:
> mon HoD, yaSpu'Daj pIm tIvtaHvIS
jIH:
> nuqDaq yaSpu' pIm tu'pu' HoD? It sounds a little like he's had his officers
> replaced and he's now enjoying the new different ones. Do you mean Sar, or is
> it that the two officers you're talking about are different from one another?
Qov:
> I mean Sar.
...(poD)
> Maybe I even mean pImchu'ghach. nuq DamaS?
I never thought I'd see myself preferring a sentence with a -ghach'ed verb...
While I do like Sar, I guess here pImchu'ghach focuses more on the difference
between the officers and less on the officers themselves. I sense that's what
you're aiming for, so I think it's better.
QeS 'utlh
