Re: new sentences Saul Epstein Sat, 20 Mar 1999 12:26:16 -0600 (Quotes MDriest: Friday, March 19, 1999 8:57 AM) >Hi all, Hello. >Here are a couple of new sentences >made up by using the grammar and dictionary. >Please tell me if they are correct and answer >the additional questions. > >1. Spockhi maDZHUtoy [if?] iw'at i-plak s'krIoy. >Spock might die if you don't stop his blood >(from flowing). death-Possibility Spock-Agent if(cessation-negative Spock-Possessor blood-Patient you-Agent)) >[is the hi in Spockhi correct?] Spock is the agent who may perform the action of dying. At this point that participant in a sentence is unmarked. Blood, on the other hand, is the patient that may or may not receive the action of stopping. That participant is marked with . >[How to translate the if-construction?] Rob suggested a method adapted from the original AND and OR structures, which consisted of marking a statement and its IF condition with . I only marked the IF condition in my translation, because I just realized that if both are marked the same, we depend on clause order to tell which is the statement and which the condition. Something to ponder... >2. iw'ha tixoma'ha Spock'at i-plak s'kroyZOkah! >(you) Stop his blood so that Spock may live. cessation-Command Spock-Possessor blood-Patient you-Agent Spock-Possessor (life-Possibility)-Destination >[you is superfluous in the English sentence >so it is not translated.] There is some evidence it is also unnecessary in Vulcan... >[what is the difference between ma and DZHU? >Both convey a possible future (might and may)] is less a future tense and more a permissive mood. >3. Spock'at u-plak krupat'oram. >Spock's blood is (precise shade of) green. >[Your example Spock'at krupat'oram u-plak simply >designates the substance (Spock's green blood). Our >sentence follows the X=Y construction] In the words of Landru, "Do you ask a question?" I think you're partly right, though. If anything, looks to mean "blood whose color is Spock's Green." "Spock's green blood" should probably be . >4. Tuvok'at Sharien'ran McCoy. >Tuvok's Sharien kills McCoy. >[Does McCoy need any suffix?] killing McCoy-Patient Tuvok-Possessor sword-Agent >5. s'th'rIanDZHA Sharien'ti! >I will not kill you with the Sharien. >alternative: s'hi th'rIanDZHA Sharien'ti. >[Which sentence is (more) correct?] killing-Negative-Intention you-Patient Sharien-Instrument I-Agent So your second construction is correct, but emphasizes "you." >6. iwl'mnahPE th'ha. >She has proposed to me. >[or use "breidhah" for to propose?] Unless anyone knows details of the way the two sets of terms were used by whoever coined them, we'll simply have to assert that one concerns this sort of proposal and the other another -- or some such distinction. Also, unless one is specifically a bond-proposal or some such, that would have to be stated in the sentence. >7. Th'at kae s'at kae'ha. >My mind to your mind. >[Is there a Vulcan word for thoughts?] Should be. >As far as we know they are as correct as >possible. The following sentences are examples >of what we cannot do with our current knowledge. >Could you please translate? Let's see what we can do with the current state of things, and make proposals for the rest. Thanks for offering up something for us to work on. I should note that some of these translations depend directly on the original grammar, which is still in the process of significant revision. Since you seem to be asking in terms of the original grammar, I answered in kind. Sort of. (Also, none of the proposed revisions have any real status, so I'm not sure how much sense it would make to bring them in right now. I'll see what I can do about all that...) -- from Saul Epstein locus*planetkc,com - www,planetkc,com/locus "Surakri' ow'phacur the's'hi the's'cha'; the's'pharka the's'hi surakecha'." -- K'dvarin Urswhl'at