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

[mayql qunenoS]

Savan SuStel DloraH je. As always, thank you for taking the time to
reply. Once more your comments help me realize several mistakes of
mine..

jIH:
> QIj'egh vutwI'ma' 'e' wItlhobDI', Sojmaj vutbe'pu'mo' ghaH, SIjwI'Daj
> chIlpu' 'e' meq ghaH.
> when we requested that our cook explains himself because he hadn't
> cooked our food, he reasoned that he had lost his knife.
SuStel:
> "Explain himself" is an English idiom. Just say {QIj vutwI'ma' 'e' wItlhobDI'}
> "when we requested that our cook explain."

hmm. I hadn't even realized that the <to explain oneself> is an idiom
to start with ! thanks for telling me. I will keep that in mind.

jIH:
> SIjwI' Daleghbe' neH 'e' wIHar 'e' DapIHqu''a'
> do you really expect that we believe you only didn't see the knife ?
SuStel:
> I'm not sure I understand what this sentence. There's nothing wrong
> with the grammar, just the meaning.

According to the story, the cook tries to make excuses for himself,
saying something like "I'm not lying ; I wanted to prepare the food,
but I just didn't find the knife. if I had seen it, I would have
prepared the food".

jIH:
> nepwI' SoH ! majach ! ..'ej SIjwI' 'uchpu' Sogh.
> you liar ! we shouted ! ..and the lieutenant grasped the knife.
SuStel:
> Hmm. I'm not sure the {-pu'} is correct in this case. The lieutenant
> didn't hold and complete holding the knife > at this time, did he? Perhaps
> {'uchchoH}?

..or even maybe {'uchta'} ; the lieutenant set out to grasp the knife
and succeeded in doing so. I'm not sure though.. the whole aspect
grammar continues to confuse me. let alone that I have associated the
{-choH} with cases in which <one is becoming something>. i.e <becoming
lucky, quiet etc>. Can we say <one "became" to hold the knife ?>.

jIH:
> nuv, yIjot'eghchoH ! wIjatlh.. tlhIb neH vutma'. meqmo' DaHoHnISbe'.
> calm down man ! we told him.. our cook is only incompetent. you don't
> need to kill him for this reason.
SuStel:
> "Calm down!" would be {yIjot'eghmoH}.
> {jatlh} takes a "speech event" as its object, not a person. You can't
> use the prefix trick in this case, because that only works for first- and
> second-person objects. Say instead, {ghaHvaD majatlh} "we told him."
> "For this reason" is, of course, {meqvammo'}.

oh yes, you're right ! both the <calm down> and the <for this reason>,
are just another two additional careless mistakes of mine..
And I'm very happy to read your comments on the prefix trick. When we
had talked about the prefix trick some time way back, I remember
someone had written that <it only works for first- and second-person
objects>, but at that time I hadn't quite understood that, so I went
on failing to "digest" this valuable information. Luckily, now that I
read your comment, I understand how it is supposed to work. (or at
least I think I do !).
However, I need to confess that i cannot understand why we can't use
the prefix trick, to say the <we told him>. Is there a grammar reason,
or is it just an arbitrary rule ?

jIH:
> DaH, maHvaD pItSa' chab qemmeH vay' yIngeH neH.
> now, just send someone to bring us some pitsa.
SuStel:
>Hee hee... Would that job be {pItSa' chab lupwI'}?

yes indeed ! and now that I'm thinking of it, perhaps it could be also
{pItSa' chab HIjwI'}.

jIH:
> 'ej maHvaD Hiq bIr je qem ghaH 'e' yIra' 'e' yIlIjbe' !
> and don't forget to command him that he brings cold beers for us too !
SuStel:
> Technically, you can't put {je} after only one noun (phrase). Put it after
> the verb instead.

thanks for reminding me ! Only after I read your comment, I remembered
we had mentioned this also another time in the past, but I had
forgotten all about it. Hopefully, I will keep this in mind from now
on.

mayqel mIv Hurgh qunnoq

On Sat, Mar 5, 2016 at 10:22 PM, DloraH <seruq at bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> > SIjwI' Daleghbe' neH 'e' wIHar 'e' DapIHqu''a'
>> > do you really expect that we believe you only didn't see the knife ?
>>
>> I'm not sure I understand what this sentence. There's nothing
>> wrong with the grammar, just the meaning.
>
> I read the Klingon, compiled my own interpretation, then read the English and found I had the same
> result as his English (with only minor differences such as "merely" instead of "only", "did" instead
> of "do".)
>
>
> -- DloraH
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tlhingan-hol mailing list
> Tlhingan-hol at kli.org
> http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol