tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Mar 08 08:35:51 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: E pluribus unum: $0.02-wIj
>Date: Wed, 8 Mar 1995 04:00:10 -0500
>Originator: [email protected]
>From: "A.Appleyard" <[email protected]>
>ghItlhpu' "Mark E. Shoulson" <[email protected]> (Subject: Re: E
>pluribus unum: $0.02-wIj):-
>> > A literal translation of the original would seem to be {law'wI'vo' wa'}.
>> Yes, though lacking a verb ... (bear in mind that Klingon does NOT have an
>> implied copula ...
>Sorry. {law'wI'vo' ghaH wa'} ?
Why "ghaH"? We were talking about countries, not people. I'd rather
consider a country to be an "it", not a speaking being.
I'm not sure I like it perfectly as it stands then either; for one think
it somehow sounds more natural to me as "wa' 'oH" than "'oH wa'" and in
either case it means "it is one." I know that pronouns can be used for "to
be" of existence (as in "pa'DajDaq ghaH yaS"), but it sounds weird applied
to this case. Recall that near as we can tell, pronouns-as-verbs are
*copulas* and aren't normally used for just plain existence (despite the
example just cited). Recall someone's suggestion for "verengan vIHoHmeH
'oH tajvam" for "In order to kill the Ferengi, this knife is." It sounds
more like "It's this knife," and I wonder *what* is that knife.
Maybe even tu'choHlu'?
I'm also not positive I don't like the verbless form. Sure, it's not
normative Klingon, and it's not easy for a beginner to understand (so I'd
recommend a different form for beginners), but colloquially it could make
sense.
~mark