[Tlhingan-hol] KLBC: {-'e'} and {-bogh}

[qov at kli.org]

> I only had time to work on the translation of the klingon sentences, so
here it
> is :

Only do as many as you want to.  When you know you've got it, you can move
on to another fun piece of grammar.
> 
> {HejwI' vem'e' tu'bogh Hoqra' qon yaS.}
> <The officer recorded the rober's tracks which were found by the
tricorder.>
> I don't think that we put place the {-'e'} anywhere else here. If it was
placed
> on the {Hoqra'} the meaning would be <The officer recorded the tricorder,
> which found the rober's tracks>. I don't think this makes sense in
english.

maj.

> {'IH Hoqra' 'uchbogh yaS'e'.}
> <The officer who holds the tricorder is beautiful.> Same here. I don't
think
> we put place {-'e'} on {Hoqra'}. Then we would have <The tricorder which
is
> held by the officer is beautiful>.
> Maybe, a tech freak could characterize a tricorder as being "beautiful"
but
> still..

'IH could also be translated as handsome, lovely, or the like.  In fact I
almost wrote two sentences on this, one in praise of the tricorder and one
for the officer.

> {QI' yaS ghaH yaS'e' Ho'bogh loDnI'lI'.} <The officer who is admired by
your
> brother is a military officer.> Maybe here we could place the {-'e'} on
> {loDnI'lI'} ; then we would get <Your brother who admires the officer, is
a
> military officer>.

maj.

> {QI yaS ghaH'a' QI 'avbogh nuv'e'?}
> <is the person who guards the bridge, a bridge officer?> I don't think we
> could put here the {-'e'} on the second {QI}, because then we would be
> asking if the bridge is a bridge officer.

Hee, hee. I didn't even think of that. I was just making a sort of joke,
because in English when we say "bridge officer" we always mean "meH yaS".

> Doq meyrI''e' yughbogh loS reD 'Impey pIrmuS 'a SuD ra'Duchmey Dabogh
> Dopmey.
> <The square is red which consists the four sided pyramid bottom, however
> the sides which act in the manner of the triangles are SuD
> (green,blue,yellow).> I guess we could place the {-'e'} on pIrmuS, if we
> wanted to indicate that the bottom is red. On the second sentence (after
the
> {'a}) I don't think that the {-'e'} could be placed anywhere, because the
sides
> are the triangles as well, so there isn't anything to distinguish or
clarify to the
> listener.

majQa'.  It's a kind of confusing sentence. meqlIj vInaD.

> moH yang ghIHmo' toqwIn'e' laSta'bogh 'aj.
> The only way I can think of this making any sense, is if the {-'e'} was
removed
> from the {toqwIn} and placed on the {'aj}. Then we would have the meaning
> <The image of the rubber stamp is ugly, because the admiral who inked up
> the stamp was careless.>

You don't like the current meaning of "The stamp mark is ugly because the
rubber stamp that the admiral inked up is messy"?  I accept it if you reject
that sentence.  I wanted to use yang laS and toqwIn in a sentence and messed
around a bit to find a way to cram them in with a -bogh clause.

> {pIm 'uSqan'e' lo'bogh no'ma'.}
> <The iron which was used by our ancestors is different.> I think we could
> place here the {-'e'} on {no'ma'} thus having <Our ancestors who used iron
> were different>.

maj.

> Hopefully, tomorrow I will have the time to translate the english
sentences
> too..

They will probably be harder, because there is more room for you to make
mistakes, but you seem to understand the process now.

> cpt qunnoq
> 
> On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 12:30 PM, mayql qunenoS <mihkoun at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> You have no more created passive voice in Klingon than you have
> >> created
> >> type-5 suffixes in English. When you translate, you use the tools the
> >> language has. If I can use a ladder to get things off high shelves in
> >> my house and you stand on a dog in your house, the fact that I could
> >> reach the marmalade  for breakfast this morning does not imply the
> >> spontaneous appearance of a dog in my kitchen. Different tools, same
> >> job, even if I sometimes refer to your dog as a ladder, and you
> >> sometimes refer to my ladder as a dog. (Also some people will
> >> complain that it's stupid that you stand on a dog, and your house
> >> can't be taken seriously as a real house until whoever built it gets
you a
> ladder).
> >
> > This is a beautiful explanation ! Believe it or not, I had suspected
> > that something like this must be going on, but I asked anyway in order
> > to make certain. This whole thing reminds me of something SuStel had
> > told me, not so long ago, when I had difficulty understanding why the
> > indefinite subject isn't actually passive voice, however we often
> > choose to translate it as passive voice. If memory serves my right, he
> > had said that I was confusing the literal translation with the actual
> > meaning (or something like that).
> >
> > Anyway, I think I understand now, so I will start working on your last
> > group of sentences and post them here soon.
> >
> > cpt qunnoq
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 8:12 AM, Anthony Appleyard
> > <a.appleyard at btinternet.com> wrote:
> >> This comma in English written relative senteces likely corresponds to
> >> a slight hesitation in speech.
> >>
> >> ----Original message----
> >> From : lojmitti7wi7nuv at gmail.com
> >>
> >>>  ...
> >>> In English, we differentiate parenthetical from identifying clauses
> >>> by using a comma with parenthetical clauses, but omitting the comma
> >>> for a clause that identifies the specific item. Klingon apparently
> >>> does not differentiate between these two types of relative clauses.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Tlhingan-hol mailing list
> >> Tlhingan-hol at kli.org
> >> 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