tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Feb 09 09:56:29 1995

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

Re: HIqIH



According to Alan Anderson:
> 
> <<qIH>> vIlo'laHbe'chugh vaj <<vIDel'egh>> vItam.
> 
> Hmm.  Is {vI***'egh} or {jI***'egh} correct?  I really /do/ have an object,
> but does {-'egh} remove the need for {vI-}?

It's right there in TKD, 4.2.1. jI***'egh.

> > law' jIlaD.
> 
> "I read a lot."  I guess I got lazy and used a /very/ naive translation.
> "I read many things" would be better.  I say "things" because I want to
> include books, magazines, billboards, and cereal boxes.
> {Dochmey law' vIlaD.}

Your original English would be translated as {jIlaDqu'}. Either
that or your {Dochmey law' vIlaD} works fine. {law' jIlaD} is
gibberish.

> > law' laD.
> > law' Sov.
> 
> Similarly, "He reads a lot" and "He knows a lot."
> {paqmey law' laD 'ej Dochmey law' Sov.}

You are probably using {Doch} beyond its likely use in Klingon.
For all we know, it only refers to concrete objects, not
abstract concepts. {ngoDmey} would probably be a better choice.
Okrand may someday tell us otherwise, but for now, we generally
try to reserve {Doch} for physical items.

> Now I reveal the mystery phrase:
> > wIqIp 'e' wIbuQDI' <<qIpbogh chaHbe' puqpu'>> 'e' jatlh *Corey*.
> 
> "When we threaten to spank him, Corey says 'Children are not for hitting.'"
> 
> I did /not/ want to recast the quoted phrase, I wanted to /translate/ it.
> It is a direct quote, and I wanted to preserve it as closely as possible.
> Maybe "Children are not that one hits them."  {ghaH qIplu' 'e' chaHbe' puqpu'.}
> Or maybe not.  It's much easier to reword to an active form: {puqpu' tIqIpQo'.}

How about {ray' Dabe' puqpu'} or {rapbe' ray' puqpu' je}? The
concept just seems simpler this way, and the simpler grammar
better suits a child's quotation.

> -- ghunchu'wI'

charghwI'
-- 

 \___
 o_/ \
 <\__,\
  ">   | Get a grip.
   `   |


Back to archive top level