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

[mayql qunenoS]

SuStel lojmIt tI'wI' nuv je, thank you for taking the time to reply ;
Once more, your replies taught me many things I didn't know.

jIH :
> 'utchugh 'oH vaj QuQ yItujqu'choHmoH ! jISaHbe' ! romuluSngan wIjuSnIS !
SuStel :
> What is the {'oH} referring to here? I suspect it's "overheating the engine."
> That would make this a sentence-as-subject, which is not allowed.
lojmIt tI'wI' nuv :
> Klingons don’t tend to use pronouns where they aren’t really needed. It’s not
> wrong to use them, but it’s like putting a plural suffix on a noun that has a number
> in front of it.

Indeed, as lojmIt tI' wI' nuv wrote, I placed the {'oH}, in order to
express the "it" of the "if it is necessary" part of the sentence. I
realized now, that it wasn't needed. There are some things I need to
familiarize myself with. I think that slowly I'm shaking off the habit
of putting the plural suffixes {-pu'}, {-mey} when the number is
expressed from numbers or prefixes. I understand now that the next
step must be, not to use pronouns where they aren't needed.

Interesting point too, with regards to the sentence-as-subject matter.
I hadn't realized that they aren't allowed.

jIH :
> maSutlhta'DI', toQDujDaq QuQ chu''e' wIjomta'bogh wIHevlaH.
when we finished negotiating, we were able to receive the new engine
which we installed at our bird of prey.
SuStel :
> the {-ta'} on {jom} is incorrect.
> there's nothing that needs disambiguating about the clause
lojmIt tI'wI' nuv :
> But at that moment, had you accomplished installing it in your bird of prey? I don’t think so.
> Note that you don’t need {-‘e’} when the head noun of a relative clause is obvious

Yes, you're right ; as it seems, I'm still struggling to understand
the difference between tenses and aspects. When the context is simple,
I think I could use aspect in a more precise manner. But when there
are multiple events, then apparently I get confused. So, I guess a lot
more practice is still needed, in order to rectify this problem.

As far as the {-'e'} is concerned, now that I read again this
sentence, I realized that it is unnecessary. There was a time I didn't
understand at all the marking-the-head-noun action of  {-'e'}, so I
didn't use {-bogh} or {-'e'} at all. When at sometime later, I thought
I understood it, I went to the opposite extreme i.e. overusing it. I
guess it is true what they say, that "when you think you know
something" then you start making even more mistakes, because you
become careless. Anyway, I'll be more careful from now on.

jIH :
> QuQchaj boQaw'DI' neH, bochungHa'moHlaH.
> only when you destroy their engine, will you be able to make them decelerate.
SuStel :
> {neH} after a verb means "merely," not "only."

This will sound strange, but this happened because just now I realized
that I don't quite understand the difference between the english words
"merely" and "only". I just realized that in my mind they are
interchangeable, perhaps because in greek we use the same word for
both of them. This is a matter similar to war/warfare which again in
my mind are interchangeable, because in greek we use the same word for
both. So, until I learn the klingon vocabulary, so as to think in
klingon, I guess I must develop the habit of at least thinking in
english..

jIH :
> QuQ novDaq Hujbogh Degh law' lutu'lu'. pagh bIH So'Ha'laH.
> at that alien engine there are many strange symbols. no one is able to
> decrypt them.
SuStel :
> Do you mean {QuQ novDaq} "on the engine that is alien" or {nov QuQDaq} "on the alien's engine"?
> I don't understand the second sentence at all.
lojmIt tI'wI' nuv :
> {pagh} is misplaced. It’s apparently the subject.

Indeed I meant "on the engine that is alien" ; and lojmIt tI'wI' nuv
is right.. I misplaced the {pagh}. I can't believe I was so careless !

jIH :
> tlhIngan Hol luSo'Ha'meH boQwI' QuQ luchenmoHta' tera'ngan.
> in order to decrypt the klingon language, terans built the boQwI' engine.
SuStel :
> Consider also the verb {ghun} "program (a computer)."
lojmIt tI'wI' nuv :
> One does not decrypt Klingon. One translates it.

You're both right. {ghun} is better and I should have used "translate"
instead of "decrypt".

lojmIt tI'wI' nuv :
> You are doing impressively well.

thank you ! It makes me very happy to see that I am making progress !

SuStel lojmIt tI'wI' nuv je, tulughchoHmoHta'mo' tlho' vIyIn !
SuStel and lojmIt tI'wI' nuv, because you corrected me, I am grateful !

mayqel mIv Hurgh qunnoq
you haven't experienced shakespear unless you read him in klingon


On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 9:04 PM, SuStel <sustel at trimboli.name> wrote:
> On 3/21/2016 2:34 PM, lojmIttI'wI'nuv wrote:
>
>>> QuQ novDaq Hujbogh Degh law' lutu'lu'. pagh bIH So'Ha'laH.
>>> at that alien engine there are many strange symbols. no one is able to
>>> decrypt them.
>>
>>
>> {pagh} is misplaced. It’s apparently the subject. Why is it before the
>> object?
>>
>> {So’Ha’} is an odd choice for “decrypt”. I know {So’} can be used for
>> “encrypt”, but it also means “hide”, and you can hide or encrypt a
>> symbol. {meS} also means “encrypt”, and if you are considering symbols,
>> “knot” makes less sense than “encrypt”, so {meSHa’} would probably be
>> less frequently misunderstood. Or simply use {mugh}. Alien symbols
>> aren’t really encryption. They are simply not understood by those who
>> don’t speak the language.
>
>
> {meS} is slang for "encrypt." {So'} is the normal way to say "encrypt,"
> {So'Ha'} means "decrypt with permission," and {baghHa'} means "decrypt
> without permission." (qepHom 13)
>
> --
> SuStel
> http://trimboli.name
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tlhingan-hol mailing list
> Tlhingan-hol at kli.org
> http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol