[tlhIngan Hol] Beginner's text and questions

[luis.chaparro at web.de]

SuStel:

> I suspect you actually mean either wej Hogh rej CádizDaq maghIQtaH be'nalwI' jIH je Three weeks ago, my wife and I were vacationing in Cádiz or qaStaHvIS wej Hogh vorgh, maghIQtaH be'nalwI' jIH je During the last three weeks, my wife and I have been vacationing in Cádiz.

I actually mean the last one, but I used *ret* because I found this example on *boQwI'*: *qaStaHvIS cha' tup ret jIQuch*, with *ret* meaning *be most recent*...

> This is a little tricky because we don't fully know all the rules involved, but I think you probably want to use leghlu'meH to match up with the lupoQlu'.

Ok. I've read in the *Klingon Grammar Addenda* by Terrence Donnelly that *when the subject of the purpose clause is indefinite, you can indicate this with -lu' or by 3rd person zero-suffix and no stated subject noun*. I thought it was something commonly accepted. So, you are suggesting I should always use *-lu'* in such constructions, or maybe only in this case because I was using *-lu'* with *poQ* (as a matter of style)?

> To say that something is near Sum to something else, you use the locative, not the ablative. You did this correctly earlier. 'avrI'qa'Daq Sumlaw' je 'ewrop Europe is also apparently near Africa.
> I'm not exactly sure why you're expressing uncertainty there with -law'.

Well, I was actually trying to put myself in the perspective of African people. From our side Africa seems to be very near, but likewise, from Africa, Europe seems to be very near too, and that's why many people risk their lifes to come here. I didn't exactly want to say *Europe is near Africa*, but *from the African side, Europe seems to be very near too*. I used *-law'* because it *seems* to be very near, so that motivates people to try to reach Europe, but after all it's about 15 km of sea, and immigrants come mostly on very simple, overloaded boats, which is extremely risky.
 
>> Do'Ha' 'ewrop lughoSmeH, SuDqu' QIlbogh nuv law'.
> Unfortunately, in order to go to Europe, many desperate people are very near. I'm not sure that a purpose clause is appropriate here. The many desperate people are not near in order to go to Europe.

I was trying to say *many desperate people risk a lot*. I found *SuD* on boQwI', meaning *gamble, take a chance, take a risk*. I don't know if it's correct here.
 
>> Actually, *Do'Ha'* modifies the whole sentence, but I'm not sure about how it works in Klingon.
> I struggle with this as well, but I don't think there's a clear answer. Can you split one sentence with a subordinate clause? I dunno.

Ok, thank you. Anyway, *Do'Ha'* at the beginning doesn't sound very bad, right?
 
> That's not to say that a lack of context necessarily implies a timeless fact. It's just that I wouldn't know any differently if there were no context.

I think that's exactly what I was trying to say. In every (good) act of communication, the listener / reader is supposed to have any information they need to understand the text. In order to place something in the past or future or in a specific moment of the present, we need context. Otherwise, we cannot know *when* the event actually occurred. The only option that works fine without any further context are timeless interpretations. (Of course, there are other factors at play such as the previous knowledge of the audience, pragmatics and so on, so as you say, not *always* a lack of context necessarily implies a timeless fact).