tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Aug 07 09:16:24 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: Trouble with {-moH} again... was Re: pong duj (again)
- From: [email protected]
- Subject: Re: KLBC: Trouble with {-moH} again... was Re: pong duj (again)
- Date: Wed, 07 Aug 1996 17:57:50 +0200
At 01:01 PM 6/8/96 -0700, ~mark wrote:
<...snipped, explaination...>
Thanks.
>As to the *content*, that too puzzles me. Why does the name {pagh}
>(meaning "zero" or "nothing" in Klingon) make you think it means
>"paraphernalia"? Or that the ship is paraphernalia? I suppose in a sense
>it is, since ships are equipment... I'm sort of lost here.
I actually ment that it's ST:paraphernalia. Their is no real reason for it
being their, besides from the obvious "Grab the TKD and stick a Klingon word
in there." writers ideas. (I'd go into the "It doesn't even mean anything in
the context of the program" routine, but I'm here to discuss tlhIngan Hol,
not ST.)
>>HIja'
>>{bortaS}'e' DaSov DuleghmoH <ST> (ST causes you to know the {bortaS})
>
>Order is better, but you have two main verbs here. "{bortaS} DuSovmoH
><ST>" would work (the double-object problem remains, but seems to be
>handled in a way consistent with canon). Or "<ST>mo' {bortaS} DaSov" (or
>even Sovlu'). I don't see where {legh} comes in here.
I miswrote the translation it should read: (ST causes you to see (come in
contact with) the Bortas). That probably really mixes you up...
>>gowron 'oH, bortaSDaj'e' (It is Gowron, the Bortas is his)
>>(How would one say that the Bortas belongs to Gowron??? Would this be
>>correct???)
>
>I've wished for a good "belongs to" as well. Until we have one, this case
>can be handled with:
>
>ghawran Duj 'oH {bortaS}'e'. The Bortas is Gowron's ship.
This was the reason I used the suffix (-Daj), but I couldn't figure out how
to get Gowron into the picture. Thanks for the correct translation.
Qapla'
beHwI"av