[Tlhingan-hol] Ha'DIbaH wIchmey

[SuStel]

On 1/3/2016 9:48 AM, mayql qunenoS wrote:
> 'op ben Ha'DIbaH law' vIghaj 'ej Ha'DIbaHmey SaHbogh wIchmey law'
> tu'lu'pu' 'e' vItlhoj.
> some years ago, I had many dogs, and I realized that there were many
> myths which concern dogs.

The {-pu'} on {tu'lu'} implies that the "there are" of animal myths is 
complete. That's not the case, so drop the {-pu'}.

The realizing might have been a completed action, but you can't put a 
type 7 suffix on the second verb of a sentence-as-object, so you can't 
express that.

{Ha'DIbaH} is, of course, not equal to "dog." Just say "dog."

{SaH} "care about" is all right for this sentence, but a better verb is 
{bop} "be all about."

> wa'DIch, HomDu' parHa'be' Hoch Ha'DIbaHmey.
> first, all dogs don't like bones.

By using an explicit plural on {Ha'DIbaH}, you're saying that all dogs, 
taken as a group, don't like bones. What you mean is that every dog, 
taken individually, does not like bones. I'd drop the {-mey}.

> 'elaDya'ngan 'avwI' Ha'DIbaH vIghaj,HomDu' parbogh Ha'DIbaH.
> I had a greek shepherd dog, a dog which disliked bones.

When referring to something by its country of origin, don't include the 
{ngan} "inhabitant" element. {'elaDya' 'avwI' Ha'DIbaH} "Greece guard 
animal."

> *pasta* 'oHbej Soj qaq'Daj'e'.
> its favourite food was definitely pasta.

Don't forget that only type 5 noun suffixes migrate to the end of an 
adjectival verb.

What you've said here means "pasta is its preferable food." I'm not sure 
what that means. Try rewording this using {maS} "prefer" instead.

> buqvo' Sojmey Sar vIlelchugh, *pasta*vaD Sam 'ej wa'DIch Sop.
> if I took out various foods from a bag, it would search for pasta and
> eat it first.

It doesn't search "for the benefit of pasta," so {-vaD} is the wrong way 
to say this. Just drop the {-vaD} and it'll still work.

I'm not sure that {wa'DIch} can be used adverbially like that. It's 
usually used after a noun to indicate an ordinal, though we've also seen 
it used at the beginning of a sentence to denote the numbering of a list.

To avoid this problem, consider using a phrase like {latlh Soppa'} 
"before it eats another."

> ghIq tawvo' wItlhappu'bogh Ha'DIbaH wIghaj.
> then we had a dog which we took from the street.

Your word order inside the relative clause is incorrect. What are the 
subject and object of the relative verb?

> tIr ngogh parHa' Ha'DIbaHvam.
> this dog liked bread.
>
> tIr ngogh parHa' law' Hoch Soj parHa' puS..
> it liked bread most than any other food.

A comparative sentence requires a verb expressing a quality, but 
{parHa'} "like" isn't a quality. Try recasting.

> vIje'DI', jIHvaD mubej, 'ej vIleghbe'chugh mol. (tIr ngogh)
> whenever I fed it, it would watch for me, and if I didn't see it, it
> would bury it. (the bread)

Don't be afraid to restate your nouns where clarity is required. Klingon 
tolerates more repetition than English does.

{jIHvaD mubej} means "it watches me for my benefit." This isn't what you 
mean, though I'm not exactly sure what you did mean. Remember that 
{-vaD} "beneficiary" doesn't necessarily work for every English sentence 
that uses "for." Maybe something like {Ha'DIbaH vIlegh 'e' loS Ha'DIbaH} 
"the animal waits for me to see it" would work.

> Ha'DIbaH Dogh..
> silly dog..
>
> wIch cha'DIch : latlh Ha'DIbaHmey 'av 'avwI' Ha'DIbaHmey.
> second myth : guardian dogs, guard other animals.
>
> Hegh''a' 'oHbejbogh,DoyIchlan 'avwI' Ha'DIbaH'e' vIghaj.
> I had a german shepherd, which was definitely Death.

I'd probably use the noun suffix {-na'} "definite," partly because the 
sentence is about a noun, not a verb, and partly because it makes it 
clear that {Hegh} IS a noun and not an interrogative verb.

Hegh'a'na' 'oHbogh DoyIchlan 'avwI' Ha'DIbaH'e' vIghaj

> Ha'DIbaH porgh tuQtaHbogh Hegh'a' 'oH Ha'DIbaH'e'..
> the dog was Death which was wearing a dog's body..
>
> tIqDajDaq HurghtaHghach vIDellaHbe'.
> I'm not able to describe the darkness at its heart.

You can't combine nouns in a noun-noun construction if the first noun 
has a type 5 noun suffix. This is one of those apparently arbitrary 
rules in TKD. It works, though, if you simply drop the locative:

tIqDaj HurghtaHghach vIDellaHbe'
I am not able to describe the continuing darkness of its heart

Using {-taH} just to fill out a {-ghach} is a common, but cheating, 
tactic. Unless you actually mean "continuing darkness," what other 
suffixes might be better? {Hurghchu'ghach} "complete darkness"? Or 
perhaps you could just say

tIqDaj 'ay' Hurgh vIDellaHbe'
I cannot describe the dark section of its heart

> 'uSghebmey rurbogh Ha'DIbaHmey HoH, vighro'mey HoH, latlh Ha'DIbaHmey HIv je.
> it would kill chickens, it would kill cats, it would attack other animals too.
>
> 'ach maHvaD jup 'oH.
> however with us it was friendly. (for us it was a friend)
>
> tagha' *dopperman* tu'lu'. QIpbogh *dopperman*..
> finally, there was a dopperman. a dopperman which was stupid..

jIQuptaHvIS *dog*mey puS vIghajpu' 'ach Seghchaj vIngu'laHbe'. DaH wa' 
vIghro' neH vIghaj.

-- 
SuStel
http://www.trimboli.name/