ben puSqu', athens vIDabtaH.. pa' jIyIntaHvIS, tInmo' chuqmey, Hoch jaj puH DujwIj vISeDtaH. 'ach qen juH vengDaq vIcheghta' 'ej naDev mach chuqmey. machmo' chuqmeyvam, Dat vIjaHmeH jIyIt; puH Duj vIlo'be'. DaH, chaq jatlhlu': QaQ ghu' ! nIn Dalo'nISbe' ! 'a napbe' ghu'.. wa' ben, puH DujwIjDaq DIS leH ta'ta' jonwI'. 'ej leHvam ta'ta'DI', mujatlh: pIjHa' puH Dujvam Dalo'ba'.. jIjang: bIlugh; chay' ghu'vam DaSov. jatlh: puH Duj bIngDaq spidermey tu'lu'.. jIjang: toH ! qay'wI' tu'lu''a'. 'ej ghIq mujatlh: pIj puH Duj Dalo'be'chugh vaj QapHa'choH Dujvetlh ! ..ghIq vIghel: vaj chay' jIvangnIS. 'ej jatlh: Hoch Hogh wa'logh yISeD ! Hu'tegh ! ..jIHvaD vavwI' dogmey qawmoH ghu'vam ! Hoch jaj, vIQuchmoHmeH mayIttaH jIH bIH je. DaH, Hoch Hogh puH DujwIj vIvIHnISmoH je ! vaj dog rurchoH puH DujwIj.. ghu'vam vIparHa' ! vIghro' rur DujwIj net jalchugh vaj qaq ghu'vam.. vIghro' rurchugh vIH'eghmoHlaH. qunnoH jan puqloD ghoghwIj HablI'vo' vIngeHta'
On 12/7/2016 9:46 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
ben puSqu', athens vIDabtaH..
pa' jIyIntaHvIS, tInmo' chuqmey, Hoch jaj puH DujwIj vISeDtaH.
I've noticed you overusing *-taH* recently. You haven't technically been wrong in your use, but your meaning is probably not exactly what you're writing. Explain to me, for instance, the difference between *ben puSqu' /Athens/ vIDabtaH* and *ben puSqu' /Athens/ vIDab.* Also explain the difference between *Hoch jaj puH DujwIj vISeDtaH* and *Hoch jaj puH DujwIj vISeD.*
'ach qen juH vengDaq vIcheghta' 'ej naDev mach chuqmey.
machmo' chuqmeyvam, Dat vIjaHmeH jIyIt; puH Duj vIlo'be'. DaH, chaq jatlhlu': QaQ ghu' ! nIn Dalo'nISbe' !
'a napbe' ghu'..
wa' ben, puH DujwIjDaq DIS leH ta'ta' jonwI'. 'ej leHvam ta'ta'DI', mujatlh: pIjHa' puH Dujvam Dalo'ba'.. jIjang: bIlugh; chay' ghu'vam DaSov. jatlh: puH Duj bIngDaq spidermey tu'lu'.. jIjang: toH ! qay'wI' tu'lu''a'.
In the immortal words of William Strunk, "Omit needless words." Just say *qay''a' vay'?*
'ej ghIq mujatlh: pIj puH Duj Dalo'be'chugh vaj QapHa'choH Dujvetlh ! ..ghIq vIghel: vaj chay' jIvangnIS. 'ej jatlh: Hoch Hogh wa'logh yISeD !
Hu'tegh ! ..jIHvaD vavwI' dogmey qawmoH ghu'vam ! Hoch jaj, vIQuchmoHmeH mayIttaH jIH bIH je.
*/Dog/ Doy'qu'moHlu'meH 'ej//ghatlhlu'meH /dog/ yItmoHlu'. 'utbe' bel.*
DaH, Hoch Hogh puH DujwIj vIvIHnISmoH je !
vaj dog rurchoH puH DujwIj.. ghu'vam vIparHa' !
*'ach /dog/ DamuS qar'a'? *
vIghro' rur DujwIj net jalchugh vaj qaq ghu'vam.. vIghro' rurchugh vIH'eghmoHlaH.
*'ej leng tIqDaq bISeDnISDI' DulobQo'bej 'ej not bIpaw.* -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
SuStel:
Explain to me, for instance, the difference between *ben * *> puSqu' **Athens** vIDabtaH* and *ben* *> puSqu' **Athens**vIDab.* Also explain the difference between *Hoch jaj puH DujwIj* *> vISeDtaH* and *Hoch jaj puH DujwIj vISeD.*
You're definitely right. I re-thought these sentences without the {-taH}, and there is no difference. Thanks for pointing this out ! SuStel:
Just say *qay''a' vay'?*
This is a good idea. I don't know why, but I always forget the verb {qay'}, in favor of the noun {qay'wI'}. jIH:
vaj dog rurchoH puH DujwIj.. ghu'vam vIparHa' ! SuStel: *'ach **dog** DamuS qar'a'?*
right ! obviously the {vIparHa'} was wrong. The intented word was {vIpar}. SuStel:
*Dog** Doy'qu'moHlu'meH* *> 'ej* *ghatlhlu'meH **dog**yItmoHlu'.*
ngoQvam vISovbe' ! dogmey DIQuchmoHmeH DIyItmoH, reH 'e' vIHar.. I didn't know this fact ! I always thought that we walk the dogs only to make them happy. 'ej DaH jIqaw.. vavwI' dogmey HoS law' jIH HoS puS ! vaj, yIttaHvIS pe'vIl muluH ! tagha' vIyItmoHbe'; muyItmoH ! hahaha because my father's dogs were stronger than me, eventually it was not me who was walking these dogs; it was the dogs who were walking me ! hahaha SuStel:
*'ej leng tIqDaq bISeDnISDI' DulobQo'bej 'ej not bIpaw*
hahaha ! DuHvam vItlhojbe' ! qunnoH jan puqloD ghoghwIj HablI'vo' vIngeHta' On 7 Dec 2016 5:17 pm, "SuStel" <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 12/7/2016 9:46 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
ben puSqu', athens vIDabtaH..
pa' jIyIntaHvIS, tInmo' chuqmey, Hoch jaj puH DujwIj vISeDtaH.
I've noticed you overusing *-taH* recently. You haven't technically been wrong in your use, but your meaning is probably not exactly what you're writing.
Explain to me, for instance, the difference between *ben puSqu' Athens vIDabtaH* and *ben puSqu' Athens vIDab.* Also explain the difference between *Hoch jaj puH DujwIj vISeDtaH* and *Hoch jaj puH DujwIj vISeD.*
'ach qen juH vengDaq vIcheghta' 'ej naDev mach chuqmey.
machmo' chuqmeyvam, Dat vIjaHmeH jIyIt; puH Duj vIlo'be'. DaH, chaq jatlhlu': QaQ ghu' ! nIn Dalo'nISbe' !
'a napbe' ghu'..
wa' ben, puH DujwIjDaq DIS leH ta'ta' jonwI'. 'ej leHvam ta'ta'DI', mujatlh: pIjHa' puH Dujvam Dalo'ba'.. jIjang: bIlugh; chay' ghu'vam DaSov. jatlh: puH Duj bIngDaq spidermey tu'lu'.. jIjang: toH ! qay'wI' tu'lu''a'.
In the immortal words of William Strunk, "Omit needless words." Just say *qay''a' vay'?*
'ej ghIq mujatlh: pIj puH Duj Dalo'be'chugh vaj QapHa'choH Dujvetlh ! ..ghIq vIghel: vaj chay' jIvangnIS. 'ej jatlh: Hoch Hogh wa'logh yISeD !
Hu'tegh ! ..jIHvaD vavwI' dogmey qawmoH ghu'vam ! Hoch jaj, vIQuchmoHmeH mayIttaH jIH bIH je.
*Dog Doy'qu'moHlu'meH 'ej ghatlhlu'meH dog yItmoHlu'. 'utbe' bel.*
DaH, Hoch Hogh puH DujwIj vIvIHnISmoH je !
vaj dog rurchoH puH DujwIj.. ghu'vam vIparHa' !
*'ach dog DamuS qar'a'? *
vIghro' rur DujwIj net jalchugh vaj qaq ghu'vam.. vIghro' rurchugh vIH'eghmoHlaH.
*'ej leng tIqDaq bISeDnISDI' DulobQo'bej 'ej not bIpaw.*
-- SuStelhttp://trimboli.name
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 12/7/2016 11:02 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
SuStel:
Explain to me, for instance, the difference between *ben * *> puSqu' */*Athens*/* vIDabtaH* and *ben* *> puSqu' **/Athens/**vIDab.* Also explain the difference between *Hoch jaj puH DujwIj* *> vISeDtaH* and *Hoch jaj puH DujwIj vISeD.*
You're definitely right. I re-thought these sentences without the {-taH}, and there is no difference. Thanks for pointing this out !
It's not that there's no difference; it's that the version with *-taH* does not mean exactly what the version without it means, and it's the version without that you intend. *Hoch jaj puH DujwIj vISeDtaH *means something like /every day I am continuously driving my car./ But continuity and being ongoing are not really what you're trying to convey. Sure, the act of driving is continuous from one moment to the next, but what you're expressing is your habit of or regularity in doing any driving at all. That's not a continuous concept. You want to tell me that your driving was a regular thing you did. There's no suffix for that. *Hoch jaj puH DujwIj vISeD.* -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
ok, I understand ! always aspect confused me.. It will sound strange, but when it comes to aspect, I know there are things I don't understand, but I just can't realize what those things are. If this makes any sense.. I wish klingon had tenses instead of aspect.. lets say I want to say "I didn't know that"; what do I write ? {time-stamp jISovbe'} or {jISovbe'pu'} ? Is my not-having-known a completed event or not ? I think it is a completed event, which continues neverthless. go figure.. I just can't understand aspect. I wish we had tenses instead. qunnoH jan puqloD ghoghwIj HablI'vo' vIngeHta' On 7 Dec 2016 7:07 pm, "SuStel" <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 12/7/2016 11:02 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
SuStel:
Explain to me, for instance, the difference between *ben * *> puSqu' **Athens** vIDabtaH* and *ben* *> puSqu' **Athens**vIDab.* Also explain the difference between *Hoch jaj puH DujwIj* *> vISeDtaH* and *Hoch jaj puH DujwIj vISeD.*
You're definitely right. I re-thought these sentences without the {-taH}, and there is no difference. Thanks for pointing this out !
It's not that there's no difference; it's that the version with *-taH* does not mean exactly what the version without it means, and it's the version without that you intend.
*Hoch jaj puH DujwIj vISeDtaH *means something like *every day I am continuously driving my car.* But continuity and being ongoing are not really what you're trying to convey. Sure, the act of driving is continuous from one moment to the next, but what you're expressing is your habit of or regularity in doing any driving at all. That's not a continuous concept. You want to tell me that your driving was a regular thing you did. There's no suffix for that. *Hoch jaj puH DujwIj vISeD.*
-- SuStelhttp://trimboli.name
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 12/7/2016 12:19 PM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
I wish klingon had tenses instead of aspect.. lets say I want to say "I didn't know that"; what do I write ? {time-stamp jISovbe'} or {jISovbe'pu'} ? Is my not-having-known a completed event or not ? I think it is a completed event, which continues neverthless. go figure..
It's not a question of fact; it's a question of what you want to express. /I didn't know that but now I do/ might be expressed like so in this context: *pab DaQIjpa' vISovbe'*/before you explained the grammar I didn't know it./ I didn't use any aspect here because I'm not trying talk about anything completed; I'm talking about not knowing something and I'm talking about a time before an explanation. I'm not interested in talking about before the time an explanation was completed—though I could do that and in this context it would still make sense. I'm not interested in expressing that not knowing was completed. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
ok, thanks ! and since the matter of subject came up.. do you know any site, where aspect as we use it in klingon is described ? I have searched repeatedly the web, but the only sites I find are discussing aspect in conjuction with tenses only to complicate things more. I need a site where only aspect, and that aspect as we use it in klingon, is described. but is there anywhere something like this ? qunnoH jan puqloD ghoghwIj HablI'vo' vIngeHta' On 7 Dec 2016 8:12 pm, "SuStel" <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 12/7/2016 12:19 PM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
I wish klingon had tenses instead of aspect.. lets say I want to say "I didn't know that"; what do I write ? {time-stamp jISovbe'} or {jISovbe'pu'} ? Is my not-having-known a completed event or not ? I think it is a completed event, which continues neverthless. go figure..
It's not a question of fact; it's a question of what you want to express. *I didn't know that but now I do* might be expressed like so in this context: *pab DaQIjpa' vISovbe'** before you explained the grammar I didn't know it.* I didn't use any aspect here because I'm not trying talk about anything completed; I'm talking about not knowing something and I'm talking about a time before an explanation. I'm not interested in talking about before the time an explanation was completed—though I could do that and in this context it would still make sense. I'm not interested in expressing that not knowing was completed.
-- SuStelhttp://trimboli.name
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
HIvqa' veqlargh ! I meant " and since the matter of aspect came up.." qunnoH jan puqloD ghoghwIj HablI'vo' vIngeHta' On 7 Dec 2016 8:42 pm, "mayqel qunenoS" <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
ok, thanks ! and since the matter of subject came up..
do you know any site, where aspect as we use it in klingon is described ?
I have searched repeatedly the web, but the only sites I find are discussing aspect in conjuction with tenses only to complicate things more. I need a site where only aspect, and that aspect as we use it in klingon, is described. but is there anywhere something like this ?
qunnoH jan puqloD ghoghwIj HablI'vo' vIngeHta'
On 7 Dec 2016 8:12 pm, "SuStel" <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 12/7/2016 12:19 PM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
I wish klingon had tenses instead of aspect.. lets say I want to say "I didn't know that"; what do I write ? {time-stamp jISovbe'} or {jISovbe'pu'} ? Is my not-having-known a completed event or not ? I think it is a completed event, which continues neverthless. go figure..
It's not a question of fact; it's a question of what you want to express. *I didn't know that but now I do* might be expressed like so in this context: *pab DaQIjpa' vISovbe'** before you explained the grammar I didn't know it.* I didn't use any aspect here because I'm not trying talk about anything completed; I'm talking about not knowing something and I'm talking about a time before an explanation. I'm not interested in talking about before the time an explanation was completed—though I could do that and in this context it would still make sense. I'm not interested in expressing that not knowing was completed.
-- SuStelhttp://trimboli.name
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 12/7/2016 1:42 PM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
do you know any site, where aspect as we use it in klingon is described ?
I have searched repeatedly the web, but the only sites I find are discussing aspect in conjuction with tenses only to complicate things more. I need a site where only aspect, and that aspect as we use it in klingon, is described. but is there anywhere something like this ?
A site that discusses only aspects used in Klingon? You're chattin' on it. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 1:46 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 12/7/2016 1:42 PM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
do you know any site, where aspect as we use it in klingon is described ?
I have searched repeatedly the web, but the only sites I find are discussing aspect in conjuction with tenses only to complicate things more. I need a site where only aspect, and that aspect as we use it in klingon, is described. but is there anywhere something like this ?
A site that discusses only aspects used in Klingon? You're chattin' on it.
-- SuStel http://trimboli.name
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
rInpu'ghach taHtaHghach chollI'ghach chavta'ghach je DIqelmeH, tlhIngan Hol wIlo'laH'a'? pab wIqelmeH, DIvI' Hol wIpoQnIStaHchugh, tlhIngan Hol wIlo'chu'be'. ~mIp'av
On 12/8/2016 2:06 AM, Ed Bailey wrote:
On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 1:46 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name <mailto:sustel@trimboli.name>> wrote:
On 12/7/2016 1:42 PM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
do you know any site, where aspect as we use it in klingon is described ?
I have searched repeatedly the web, but the only sites I find are discussing aspect in conjuction with tenses only to complicate things more. I need a site where only aspect, and that aspect as we use it in klingon, is described. but is there anywhere something like this ?
A site that discusses only aspects used in Klingon? You're chattin' on it.
rInpu'ghach taHtaHghach chollI'ghach chavta'ghach je DIqelmeH, tlhIngan Hol wIlo'laH'a'?
pab wIqelmeH, DIvI' Hol wIpoQnIStaHchugh, tlhIngan Hol wIlo'chu'be'.
chaq ghaHvaD tlhIngan Hol Segh Soch mojaq qech bopbogh 'Internet Daq'e' DachuplaH. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
participants (3)
-
Ed Bailey -
mayqel qunenoS -
SuStel