tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Jun 27 05:36:51 1994

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: KLBC (old): SaQum

According to Mark E. Shoulson:
.. 
> >And just for the hell of it, charghwI' offers something
> >COMPLETELY different:
> 
> >tlhIngan Hol vIjatlhmeH jIpo'qu'be'.
> 
> >"For the purpose that I speak Klingon, I am not very skilled."
> 
> >It just seems a little more to the point.
> 
> I don't know, it doesn't work too well for me.  "I'm not very skilled in
> order to speak Klingon"?  Sounds like not being skilled is a prerequisite
> to speaking Klingon!  Like skilled people can't do it.  I think "-DI'" is
> more appropriate here, really.
> 
> tlhIngan Hol vIjatlhDI', jIpo'qu'be'.

Could I get another opinion here? I think the link between
being skilled and speaking needs something more than simple
time related coincidence. In this case, the purpose of the
skill is speaking Klingon. Consider:

jIrojmeH jIpo'qu'be'.

jIrojmeH tlhIngan Hol vIjatlhDI' jIpo'qu'be'.

tlhIngan Hol vIjatlhDI' jIpo'qu'be'.

tlhIngan Hol vIjatlhmeH jIpo'qu'be'.

While it is true that in the two examples Okrand gives in TKD,
he translates {-meH} as "in order to", he also offers "for, for
the purpose of" in the text. Why do you think he bothered to
list those if the only valid translation is "in order to"? In
the table, it is listed as "for (purpose marker)". Why bother
with THAT if the only valid translation is "in order to"?

Yes, if you translate my sentence with "in order to", then it
doesn't make much sense. So?

I sincerely think my original suggestion makes sense, and I
think it makes MORE sense than using {-DI'}. If I am wrong in
this, then I have a fundamental misunderstanding of the suffix
{-meH} that should be corrected. Could we hear a little more
dialog on this before I make that kind of fundamental change in
my useage of the language?

charghwI'

Back to archive top level