[tlhIngan Hol] The Doctor Who discussion

[SuStel]

majQa'! SoQvetlh vIqawbe'pu' vaj vIQulnIS. toH, jatlhpu' /bIQtIq bom/ 
(heh heh).

DaH jImughqa' jIH'e'. /Qel 'Iv/ ngo' DaSov'a'?

    wa' jaj jIchegh. jIcheghbej. jIcheghpa' yIpayQo'; yISaQQo';
    yIbIt'eghmoHQo'. yIvoqchu' neH bIruchtaHvIS 'ej jIvoqHa'be' je
    jIHvaD 'e' yItob.


On 2/13/2017 4:21 PM, Aurélie Demonchaux wrote:
> Sustel:
> /Doctor Who/ mughta’ghachlIj vIlaD ’e’ vItIv J
>
> DaH Doctor Who ’ay’ vImugh ’e’ vInIDnIS je!
>
> < Hegh Hoch ’e’ Sov Hoch. ’ach Hoch jaj qaSbe’. jajvam qaSbe’. le’ ’op 
> jaj. le’qu’ ’op jaj. ’op jaj Hegh pagh nuv. rut, wa’logh qaStaHvIS poH 
> nI’qu’, wa’ jaj qaStaHvIS wa’ ’uy’ jajmey, DoqtaHvIS bIQtIq bIQ ’ej 
> rItlu’DI’ ghoS Qel, taH Hoch. >
>
>
>  jIQaghpu'chugh jIHvaD yIja'.
>
>
> qatlho' !
>
>
> ~mughwI'
>
>
>
>
> 2017-02-12 18:20 GMT+01:00 SuStel <sustel at trimboli.name 
> <mailto:sustel at trimboli.name>>:
>
>     jum. choQoylaHchugh jIratlhlaH 'e' vIQub. mIw vISovbe'. jIDogh.
>     bIDogh, Qel qan. bIvemDI' SoS vav je Daghaj 'ej choqawbe'. toH,
>     loQ choqaw. nachlIj Dabbogh lut jIH. lu'. tagha' lut 'oH Hoch'e'.
>     lut yIQaQmoH. nIvmo', nIvbejmo': 'IDnar 'aplo' nIHta' maw'bogh loD
>     qan 'ej Haw'ta'. vInIHta' 'e' qaja'? toH, vIngIpta'; reH
>     vIcheghmoH 'e' vIHech. 'o 'aplo'vetlh, /Amy,/ 'aplo'vetlh Daghom
>     bInajtaHvIS. not Dumej. quq ngoDmeyvam: tIn 'ej mach, chu'chu' 'ej
>     qanqu'; 'ej SuDchu'ghachDaj SuD law' Hoch SuD puS. 'ej Doch
>     DIta'bogh, qar'a'? Doch lujallu'bogh. Doch DIta'be'bogh.
>     bInajtaHvIS ratlh Dochmeyvam. Qel /Amy Pond/ je... qaSbe'bogh
>     jajmey je.
>
>     SoQchoH Qarghmey. 'ach SoQlaHbe'chu' latlh Dop vIghoSpa'. DaH
>     naDev jInov. ratlhbogh qaSHa'ghach vIbuSQo'. qaSqa'ghach vImuS.
>     yIyInchu'. /Rory/ yImuSHa'. /Bye-bye, Pond./
>
>
>     On 2/12/2017 10:27 AM, Aurélie Demonchaux wrote:
>>     Thanks for your help and explanations Sustel !
>>
>>     I think I get it now :)
>>
>>     ~mughwI'
>>
>>     PS: "TARDIS-blue", I love your choice of example ;) Whovian jIH!
>>
>>
>>     2017-02-11 18:16 GMT+01:00 SuStel <sustel at trimboli.name
>>     <mailto:sustel at trimboli.name>>:
>>
>>         On 2/11/2017 8:34 AM, Aurélie Demonchaux wrote:
>>>         Indeed the lack of tense can be a bit confusing sometimes
>>>         and it's taking me a bit of time getting used to.
>>>
>>>         I'm still working to figure out also how it works with the
>>>         verb suffixes.
>>>
>>>         For example, in the 4 possible sentences below, do I get the
>>>         exact nuances right?
>>>
>>>         jIvutpu’ ’e’ vIparHa’
>>>         - I like that I cooked (at some point in the past)
>>>         - I like that I have cooked (just now)
>>>         - I like finishing to cook (maybe implying that this is when
>>>         I can finally eat ;)
>>
>>         "At some point in the past" implies past tense, which we know
>>         Klingon doesn't have. Instead, the *-pu'* tells us that "I
>>         cook" is a completed action. In English we can't separate
>>         tense and aspect, so the distinction is difficult for
>>         English-speakers to grasp.
>>
>>         *jIvutpu'
>>         */I cooked; I have cooked; I will have cooked
>>         /I perform, performed, or will perform an act of cooking, and
>>         I now, did, or will complete that act.
>>
>>         The single word in no way tells you whether the action is
>>         past, present, or future. It means all of them and none of
>>         them at the same time, the same way that /blue/ means
>>         sky-blue and navy-blue and TARDIS-blue all at the same time.
>>
>>         *wa'Hu' jIvutpu'
>>         */yesterday I cooked; yesterday I had cooked/
>>
>>         *DaH jIvutpu'
>>         */right now I have cooked/
>>
>>         *wa'leS jIvutpu'
>>         */tomorrow I will have cooked/
>>
>>         Contexts like these are required to determine /when/ the
>>         cooking happened.
>>
>>         If you don't use an aspect suffix, you are explicitly talking
>>         about an action that is not completed (or continuous) in the
>>         moment your are describing.
>>
>>         *jIvut
>>         */I cook; //It's true that I cook things/
>>
>>         This also does not specify /when/ an action happened, which
>>         requires context:
>>
>>         *wa'Hu' jIvut
>>         */I cooked yesterday; it's true that I engaged in cooking
>>         yesterday/
>>
>>         *DaH jIvut
>>         */I cook now; at other times I may not have cooked, but it's
>>         true that I cook now/
>>
>>         *wa'leS jIvut
>>         */I will cook tomorrow; tomorrow I'll do some cooking/
>>
>>         You can make a similar comparison with the continuous suffixes.
>>


-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20170213/49c1776e/attachment-0016.htm>