[Tlhingan-hol] Klingon Word of the Day: chaw'

[qov at kli.org]

> > Also, just stick with *Jedi*.
> I accept SuStel's point, that by transliterating WHILE NOT providing the
direct
> english word net could confuse people, a reason for which I always write
the
> english word too ; but beyond that, I'm unable to
> f*** up a klingon sentence, by the mere sight of an english word :)

Fair enough. I read your Klingon sentences before looking at the English,
and can confirm that unmarked transliterations are confusing. Consider
starring them or otherwise marking them as imports. In English text when we
import a foreign word not only do we only respell it if it's in a completely
different alphabet, but we put it in italics, for decades. In Greek, do you
transliterate loan words and use them unmarked in otherwise Greek text?

> Qov :
> 
> > Are you really saying that the main clause is in order to accomplish
> > the -meH clause?
> > There's a difference between {-meH}, establishing the purpose of the
> > following clause, and {'e'}, acting as the direct object of the
> > following clause.
> 
> this may sound strange, but grammar was never my strong suit ; so, I have
> absolutely no idea whatsoever what a clause is.

Forgive me for assuming you did. For the purpose of this discussion, it's
any OVS and the stuff in the sentence that goes with that OVS.  The sentence
{jIghungmo' ngem wIghoSpa' megh vISopmeH Qe' wISuchnIS majawtaHvIS} has five
clauses, one for each verb. The verb with no type-9 suffix, {Such} is part
of the main clause, the core of the sentence, and all the other ones are
called subordinate clauses. Each clause needs to be in OVS order and  time
and place information goes at the beginning of the clause it relates to, not
necessarily before the entire sentence.  In Klingon I might call a clause a
mu'tlheghHom.  Other people might interpret {mu'tlheghHom} differently.

> > Have you met the pronoun {net} yet?
> 
> actually I have, but as I understood it until now, it was always to be
translated
> as "one does whatever" ; so, since until now I didn't come across the need
to
> say "one does.." I never used it.
> 
> Qov :
> 
> > bIba' net chaw'. = You are permitted to sit.  (We say this instead of
> > *{bIba' 'e' chaw'lu'}. {'e' Xlu'} becomes {net X}.)
> 
> for this reason in your example, until now I thought that this could ONLY
> mean <one allows that you sit>. the <you are permitted to sit> is just an
> alternative translation, or is it always imperative that the correct
translation is
> <you are permitted to sit> ?

Both translations are possible. The only difference in meaning between "one
allows you to sit" and "you are permitted to sit" is that the first is
formal to the point of awkwardness. You could also say, "It is permissible
to sit" or "You can sit." In English constructions with "one" are quite
formal, and it's more common to say "you" when we really mean an undefined
subject.  "When you enter the building, you immediately see the beautiful
floor" really means {qach 'ellu'DI' SIbI' rav 'IH leghlu'}. It's not about
YOU at all. You've probably never even been in the building. 
(If it were the text of a Dungeons and Dragons adventure, then it would
actually mean {qach bo'elDI' ...} but without context I would translate it
with {-lu'}.

> Qov : :
> 
> > {bIba' 'e' chaw'lu'}
> 
> so this is wrong ?

According to TKD it is wrong, but Okrand sometimes does it. (There was a
post recently giving examples).  In proverbs we can just say it's
traditional ungrammaticality, like the English expression, "if it ain't
broke don't fix it" and in other cases we shrug and say that either there
are some arcane rules we don't know allowing it, or Okrand messed up. To be
safe, if you find yourself writing {'e' Xlu'}, change it to {net X}.

- Qov