[tlhIngan Hol] 'InHom ('ay' wa')
sustel at trimboli.name
Mon Jan 9 10:25:45 PST 2017
On 1/8/2017 6:54 PM, Michael Roney, Jr. wrote:
> ben law', loD tu'lu'.
> be'nal ghaj loD.
> yatlhlaHbe' be'nal.
> QorghwaghDaq ghaHtaHvIS be'nal;
> Du'Hom leghlaH.
It would be fine to say *QorwaghDajvo' Du'Hom leghlaH be'nal.*
But if you do use *ghaHtaHvIS,* remember to put the *-'e'* on the
subject: *QorwaghDaq ghaHtaHvIS be'nal'e'.*
> Du'Hom 'IH.
> yav vel tI.
> naH pov law' Hoch pov puS.
I'm not quite sure how to understand this. /Vegetables are the most
excellent./ Do you mean the vegetables in THIS garden are more excellent
than those of any other garden? There are a few ways to say that:
*Hoch Du'Hommey naH'e' Du'Homvam naH pov law' Hoch pov puS*
/of all gardens' vegetables, this garden's vegetables are the most
which could probably be shortened to
*Hoch Du'Hommey'e' naHvam pov law' Hoch pov puS*
/of all gardens, these vegetables are the most excellent/
Or you could say:
*Du'Homvam naH pov law' Hoch latlh Du'Hommey naH pov puS
*/this garden's vegetables are more excellent than every other garden's
> Du'Hom Dech chevwI' tlhoy'.
> Du'Hom ghaj 'IDnar pIn'a'.
While this is probably perfectly acceptable, I sometimes have trouble
accepting *ghaj* as an expression of ownership instead of possession.
You could say instead, *'IDnar pIn'a' Du'Hom 'oH* /it is a wizard's garden./
> Hoch ghIj 'IDnar pIn'a'.
> Du'Hom leghtaHvIS be'nal;
> DIghna' por tu'.
If it is important to maintain the single-syllable sound of this
progression, then that's fine. But I had to take a moment to realize the
last word was no longer using the *DIghna'* leaf as its subject. If the
monosyllable is not important, then expand it to at least *neH ghaH* if
not the unabridged *DIghna' por neH ghaH.*
> wa'maH cha' pemmey wa'maH cha' rammey je, por neH.
> chabalHom chabal chabal'a' neHtaH.
> DIghna' por ghajlaHbe'. net Sov
> bIt loD.
> <nuqneH, be'nalwI'?>
*nuqneH* is used as a greeting; I don't think it's meant for this sort
of thing. *nuq DaneH* would be appropriate.
> <DIghna' porvam vISoplaHchughbe', vaj jIHegh.>
You can't put rovers after type 9 verb suffixes. But you don't need to:
*vISoplaHbe'chugh* /if I cannot eat it./
> be'nalDaj SaH loD.
> Qub loD:
> <Hegh be'nalwI' vIneHbe'.
> DIghna' por vISuqqang.>
> choS, tlhoy' toS.
> nom DIghna' por Suq.
> be'nalDaj nob.
> por mIQ be'nal.
> 'ach tlhoy DIghna' por tIv.
> wa'leS, DIghna' por neHtaH.
> vaj choS, tlhoy' toSqa'.
> DIghna' por Suq.
> ngugh 'IDnar pIn'a' legh.
You've switched subjects again without it being clear what you're doing.
Without the cultural hint that wizards catching men stealing stuff from
their gardens are more likely to scare the men than the men are to scare
the wizards, it would be hard to distinguish who's doing the scaring
here. It would be the same in English if I said, "He climbed the wall.
He got the leaf. Then he saw the wizard. He scared him." Who's doing the
Fortunately, it's all right in Klingon if you want to be redundant, more
so than in English. Just say *loD ghIj 'IDnar.*
By the way, for those verbs that are completed in the telling, use
*-pu'* or *-ta'* to indicate this. So you probably want to use *DIghna'
por Suqpu'* or *DIghna' por Suqta',* but probably just *loD ghIj
'IDnar,* unless you mean the man was startled but then no longer scared.
There are a number of sentences here that you haven't added perfective
to that you probably should have, and I haven't pointed them out.
> jatlh 'IDnar pIn'a':
> DIghna' por DanIH.
> jang loD:
> be'nalwI'vaD 'oH.
This is not wrong, but I'd be tempted to use a real verb: e.g.,
> DIghna' por SopnIS.
> por Supbe'chugh, Hegh.>
> jang 'IDnar pIn'a':
> DIghna' por Daghaj.
> 'ach ghubDaQlI' DanobnIS.
You could be more specific: *ghubDaQlI' chonobnIS* or *jIHvaD ghubDaQlI'
> puq vIQorgh.
> SoS jIDa.>
> lay' loD.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the tlhIngan-Hol