[Tlhingan-hol] Klingon Word of the Day: nap

[qov at kli.org]

I second SuStel's recommendation to drop excess explicit plurals and dial
back on -ghach. When you find yourself reaching for it, check first to see
if there's a way to express the same thought more simply with a verb.

Not sure if you've read the section here on -ghach
http://klingonska.org/canon/1994-09-holqed-03-3-a.txt

- Qov

> -----Original Message-----
> From: SuStel [mailto:sustel at trimboli.name]
> Sent: March 3, 2016 10:27
> To: tlhingan-hol at kli.org
> Subject: Re: [Tlhingan-hol] Klingon Word of the Day: nap
> 
> On 3/3/2016 12:48 PM, mayql qunenoS wrote:
> > napmo' 'oH chab rur.
> > simple as pie.
> 
> I doubt Klingons use this idiom.
> 
> > ghojwI' QIp SoH ! napqu' yu'ta'ghachmey ! qatlh bIlujpu' ?
> > you stupid student ! the questions were very easy ! why did you fail ?
> 
> I might keep {yu'ta'ghach} singular and refer to the questioning as a
whole.
> 
> I'd be even more likely to replace {yu'ta'ghach} with {qaD}, or possibly
> {tobta'ghach}.
> 
> > jaghmeyma' DItojmeH Dujmaj wIchoH 'ej Duj napqu' rur 'oH 'e' wIchav.
> > in order to deceive our enemies we changed our ship and we achieved
> > that it resembles a very simple vessel.
> 
> jaghpu'ma'
> 
> Try leaving off the plural suffix when you don't need it to make clear the
> number of the noun.
> 
> You also need a perfective suffix on {wIchoH}.
> 
> > napchugh qay'pu'ghach vaj DabammeH lo'laHbe' 'oH if a problem is
> > simple, then in order to face it, it is worthless.
> 
> I read {qay'pu'ghach} as "thing which has been a problem," not just
> "problem."
> 
> Try using {-ghach} a little less. It's not taboo, as some around here
sometimes
> act, but there are often better ways to say what you want.
> 
>     napchugh qay'wI'
>     if something that is a problem is simple
> 
> I don't understand this sentence as a whole. I understand that you're
trying
> to express the idea that simple problems aren't worth the challenge, but I
> don't see how it says that, either in Klingon or in English.
> 
> How about this?
> 
>     qay'wI' nap Dabamchugh lo'laHbe'wI' Dabam
>     if you face a simple problem, you face something worthless
> 
> > SuvwI'meyvaD lo'laHbe' may'mey nap.
> > simple battles ar worthless for warriors.
> 
> SuvwI'pu'vaD
> 
> As per my previous suggestion, how much more simple and applicable is it
if
> you drop the plurals:
> 
>     SuvwI'vaD lo'laHbe' may' nap
>     a simple battle is worthless to a warrior
>     simple battles are worthless to warriors
> 
> Either one is true and it can be said of either a single warrior and
battle or
> multiple warriors.
> 
> Also, {may'} refers to a specific battle, while {vIq} refers to the IDEA
of battle.
> Try this on for size:
> 
>     SuvwI'vaD lo'laHbe' vIq nap
>     simple combat is worthless to a warrior
> 
> > nap chaH pIj 'e' lururlaw' ghojwI'pu', 'ach tugh nImerlaHlaw'..
> > often students may appear that they are simple, however soon they may
> > be able to surprise you..
> 
> Putting the subject on the first clause of a complex sentence is often a
good
> practice as it informs the listener earlier on who or what it is that
you're
> talking about, and I think it benefits your sentence here.
> 
>     nap ghojwI' pIj 'e' DanoH, 'ach chaq tugh Dumer
>     often you judge a student to be simple, but he might soon surprise you
> 
> I made the student explicitly plural (via verb prefixes) because I think
you're
> really just talking about a single student doing this. I also removed the
{-law'}
> suffixes, because those indicate the lack of certainty of the speaker, not
that
> a thing may or may not happen. I made some other tweaks to the sentence
> as well.
> 
> Another possibility:
> 
>     nap ghojwI' pIj net noH, 'ach chaq ghIq merlu'
>     often a student is judged to be simple, but he might later be
surprising
> 
> --
> SuStel
> http://trimboli.name
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Tlhingan-hol mailing list
> Tlhingan-hol at kli.org
> http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol