[Tlhingan-hol] Concerning the purpose clauses

Tue Nov 10 06:37:48 PST 2015

I’m not sure if you are struggling with a spell checker (as I often do), or if you are not yet fully familiar with the Klingon alphabet, so capitalization errors don’t pop out at you yet. Writing more will help with that.

Comments below:

pItlh
lojmIt tI'wI'nuv

> On Nov 10, 2015, at 7:46 AM, qunnoQ HoD <mihkoun at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> ...
> ..anyway,because i still have trouble assimilating the {-meH}, i would like to write some sentences so that through the corrections (which hopefully will follow) i will finally come to understand.
> 
> we painted the targh in yellow paint in order to see it
> targh wIleghmeH ghah rItlh SuD wIngoH

Your purpose clause is fine. Remember {ghaH}. There is no lowercase “H” in Klingon. It appears only as part of the romanized ligatures {ch, gh, tlh}. {ghaH rItlh SuD wIngoH} has good words in it. I’m just not sure they stick together well to form a sentence. We have a pronoun followed by a noun, a verb likely used adjectivally, and a main verb. “We finger-paint it” is clear. “Yellow pigment” is clear. Unless the targh can talk, {ghaH} is not the right pronoun, but even if you used the right pronoun, this wouldn’t really be well-formed grammar.

I’d suggest {wISuDmoH}. “We caused it to be yellow.” In this case, it’s not so important that you used pigment or that you painted it. If these things are important, then you might use multiple sentences:

targh wIleghmoHmeH wISuDmoH. wISuDmoHmeH rItlh wIlo’. wIngoH.

"We caused the targh to be yellow in order to see it. We used pigment. We finger-painted it."

You could go even a step further to be clear about your meaning:

not targhmaj wIchIl wIneH. Qu’vam wIngeDmoHmeH targh wISuDmoH. wISuDmoHmeH rItlh wIlo’. WIngoH.

“We never want to lose our targh. In order to make this task easy, we made the targh yellow. We used pigment to make it yellow. We fingerpainted it."

> i tickled my dog to anger it
> Ha'DIbaH vIQeHmeH ghah vIqotlh

You came really close here. You forgot {-moH}. You don’t be angry the dog. You cause the dog to be angry. And you have a talking dog. {‘oH}, not {ghaH}.

> they destroyed the vessel to anger the commander
> la' luQeHmeH DuJ luQaw’

Again, they did not be angry the commander. They caused the commander to be angry. {-moH}. And the Klingon {j} is never uppercase.

> i gave the commander food to get a shore leave
> leSpoH vISuqmeH Soj la’ vInob

You are trying to take the prefix shortcut a step farther than it can go. In this case, {Soj} and {la’} are both third person entities. The shortcut only works if the prefix indicates an indirect object that is not of the same person as the direct object. Typically, the direct object is an explicit third person noun, while the prefix indicates first and second person for the subject and indirect object. In your example, there’s no grammatical way to know which is the direct object and which is the indirect object.

So:

leSpoH vISuqmeH la’vaD Soj vInob.

Now, the indirect object is clear. The commander is the beneficiary of the act of giving food.

This is the normal way to indicate an indirect object; the original and older method. Later, we acquired the ability to indicate a first or second person indirect object with the “prefix shortcut”, leaving the direct object as an explicit noun and the indirect object indicated by the verb prefix. If both the direct and indirect objects are explicit third person nouns, there is no available prefix shortcut.

> she cloaked her vessel to avoid me
> mujunmeH DujDaj So’

Perfect.

> he made his bed in order to sleep
> QongmeH QongDaqDaj chenmoH

Because of the unusual noun for “bed”, this sentence looks stranger than it is. It’s well-formed.

> you took away my shoes in order to delay me
> chomImmeH waqmeywIj Dange’

If someone has their issues of HolQeD handy, I have a note in my dictionary about volume 8, number 4, page 11 relating to the verb {mIm}. I apparently interpreted that to mean the verb did not take an object. Until I can read that passage, however, I can’t see a reason to correct this one.

> he repaired his vessel for the purpose of attacking the ferengi
> verenganpu' HIvmeH DujDaj tI’

So, in English, is the term “the ferengi” singular or plural? Aside from that, this is fine.

> they skinned the targh in order to make clothes
> Sutmey chenmoHmeH targh luSurgh

Good. Nice detail on the use of {lu-} on the second verb and not the first. Almost got me on that one. It’s the most commonly bungled prefix.

> i gave the female commander vegetation to go on a date
> poH vIjaHmeH tI be' la’ vInob

You were doing so well…

In English “go on a date” is an idiom. We have no reason to believe that a Klingon would have a clue about your meaning when you say what they would read as something like “In order that I move to or along a period of time”.

I’m not sure that {be’ la’} would be interpreted as a female commander. To my eye, it looks more like a woman’s commander, or the commander of a woman. In other words, there’s a woman, and she has a commander, and you are saying something about that commander.

Add that the woman appears to belong to vegetation. Commander of the woman of the vegetation. You appear to be giving the commander of the woman of the vegetation.

be’ ghaH la’’e’. matlhejchuqmeH be’vamvaD tI vInob. 

This leaves as pretty much a mystery why giving her vegetation should serve the goal of accompanying each other, but hey, it conveys something closer to your original statement. I’m sure there are better expressions for this, but this is what I can come up with for the moment.

> 
> cpt qunnoQ
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 10:26 PM, Will Martin <lojmitti7wi7nuv at gmail.com <mailto:lojmitti7wi7nuv at gmail.com>> wrote:
> Thanks that helps. Also, I withdraw my “problem” with {vaj}, since it’s not a conjunction. The other clause is dependent. It’s just an adverbial.
> 
> I wish I had the time and/or wisdom to write with less noise and more signal.
> 
> pItlh
> lojmIt tI'wI'nuv
> 
> 
> 
>> On Nov 9, 2015, at 3:20 PM, Alan Anderson <qunchuy at alcaco.net <mailto:qunchuy at alcaco.net>> wrote:
>> 
>> On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 3:03 PM, Will Martin <lojmitti7wi7nuv at gmail.com <mailto:lojmitti7wi7nuv at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>> Okay, there’s a verb {yay’} that doesn’t seem appropriate here, so I’m not
>>> suspecting a misspelling by omitting the glottal stop, and there’s a noun
>>> {yay}, which can’t take a verb suffix {-meH}, so SOMEBODY either made a
>>> mistake here, or there’s canon vocabulary I haven’t found yet.
>> 
>> Without access to my copy of the text, I'm only guessing, but I think
>> the verb should be {yaj}.
>> 
>> -- ghunchu'wI'
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Tlhingan-hol mailing list
>> Tlhingan-hol at kli.org <mailto:Tlhingan-hol at kli.org>
>> http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol <http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol>
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Tlhingan-hol mailing list
> Tlhingan-hol at kli.org <mailto:Tlhingan-hol at kli.org>
> http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol <http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol>
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Tlhingan-hol mailing list
> Tlhingan-hol at kli.org
> http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol/attachments/20151110/1c128d94/attachment-0001.html>