Re: Let's get this party started... Rob Zook Fri, 08 May 1998 23:47:33 -0500 At 03:25 PM 5/8/98 -0500, Saul Epstein wrote: >Quotes from: Rob Zook >Date: Friday, May 08, 1998 2:07 PM > > >>At 10:03 AM 5/8/98 -0500, Saul Epstein wrote: >>>Gaudy: Is something bothering you, Barf? >>> qa an'[bo]xe[ther] s'hi lahe, Barfa? >>> ? it-bother-PROGRESSIVE you-ACCUSATIVE PRESENT, >Barf-VOCATIVE >> >>Why the progressive aspect on "bother"? > >I'm preserving the English, perhaps unnecessarily. "Is bothering" is >present progressive, meaning that the action in question is in >progress at present but began before the present and continues after. Are aspects manditory in English? Even so, should they be manditory in Vulcan? >>>Gaudy: You have a furroughed brow. >>> s'[forehead][wrinkled] >>> >>>Barf: All Klingoffs have those, you fool! >>> th'klingofje, s'[fool]a! >>> I-Klingof-HABITUAL, you-fool-VOCATIVE >>> >>>(To lend this a bit more of a Vulcan flavor (?), I've changed the >last >>>line to mean something more like "I am a Klingon" which entails the >>>bumpy forehead and is therefore logically sufficient explanation.) >> >>Habitually a klingon? Hmmm... >> >>About >> >>diklingon a-sji'at s'[fool]a! >> >>di- is the universal affirmation, I talked about in my previous post >>on logic in Vulcan, and sji is a partical added to a diectic when you >>want to specify a preceeding subject or object. > > [...] > >>Thus, diklingon a-sji'at s'[fool]a would mean: >>"All Klingons posess that (thing you mentioned previously), you >fool!" > > >OK. I think that would be , though. "All-Klingons' >(is)what-you-said." Yup the example in the grammar: the'at katra "our katra", shows that the posessor gets the prefix. So, yes, . >>We might need to further refine that thought, so you can >differentiate >>between multiple speakers. Not sure if that's necessary or not, >though. > >Not if they're all being polite and taking turns. ;-) Well before the reformation Vulcan's probably did not feel very compelled to follow any rules of politeness :) >Ah, yes. I didn't mean "just the way it is" in terms of essence or >nature per se. But while a broad habitual aspect would include things >like "I am a Klingon" as well as "I am a lumberjack," your elaboration >of periodic contour seems to demand -- or at least allow -- more >precision. So I was looking for that. Without getting into the >difference between Klingon-by-birth and a "true" Klingon that lives >the life, there is a passive Klingonness that is responsible for each >Klingon's forrowed brow. Well, pardon me if I seem to get too pedantic about it, but the only way I can describe this "klingonness" of the furrowed brow is with the characteristic of a class of things. >All Klingons have furrowed brows, regardless of their emotional state. >I am a Klingon. >I have a furrowed brow, regardless of my emotional state. > >My idea was to have the character simply state the, um, minor? >premise. Well, something like, "I am a klingon, that of course follows" would seem pretty Vulcan in it's sarcasticness :) >>>Also, I figure we can use some contour or >>>other to indicate the wrinkledness of the forehead. If that sounds >>>right, can you tell us which one and how to say it? >> >>hmmm... I was about ready to throw out spatial periodic contours, but >>you seem to have found a use for them. > > [...] > >>Although I'm still not sure that these might not work better as >>a great number of qualifier words, rather than particals. > > >So, ? If we go ahead and make them seperate words yes. I would have originally said , but I think the seperate words make more sense. Rob Z.