tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Aug 14 10:18:41 1996

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

Re: tlhIngan Hol chu' jIH



>Date: Tue, 13 Aug 1996 22:11:25 -0700
>From: [email protected] (HoD trI'Qal)

>I wasn't sure if this was open to debate or not... so I took the liberty of
>tossing in my $0.02, since Mark already replied. :)


>At 07:31 AM 8/13/96 -0700, Mark E. Shoulson wrote:
>>>Date: Sat, 10 Aug 1996 11:58:59 -0700
>>>From: Randal Lanning <[email protected]>
>>
>>>At 11:29 AM 8/5/96 -0700, you wrote:
>>
>>Where "you"==Me, Mark Shoulson.
>>
>>>   I was trying to say that "I am new to the Klingon language."
>>>Although I have been studying the TKD for about a month now off and on, I
>>>decided to write my first letter in it. I read the above as "I am a new
>>>student to the Klingon language." Which if I have read it right, would be
>>>correct also.
>>
>>Right, that's what I was saying.  "New to..." is not really attested
>>anywhere in known Klingon, and it's not clear how it would be done.  Would
>>the thing you're new to be the object of the verb "chu'" (as you have it)?
>>Possibly, but I wouldn't guess it at first.  And if it were, you'd have to
>>put the right verb-prefix (presumably vI-) on the verb.


>I'd re-cast:

>   DaH tlhIngan Hol vIghojchoH neH

>The <DaH> is probably optional.

Heh... That makes sense, but isn't necessarily what I'd start suggesting to
a newcomer.  Then again, it's not that complex.

>>>>>Qu'wIj ghuntaHwI'
>>>>
>>>>Here too, "My task is a programmer..."  You need 'oH.... 
>>
>>Oh, I certainly agree that "Qu'" is acceptable for "job" (I use it that way
>>myself).  The problem is that you need a verb (Qu'wIj 'oH ghunwI''e').
>>Also, your job isn't a programmer, is it?  Your job is a job, and jobs
>>aren't programmers.  Your job is *that of* a programmer, or *to be* a
>>programmer, which would probably have to be expressed differently in
>>Klingon.


>I learned long ago from charghwI' to wince whenever I see a verb nominalized
>and used in that "to be" construction:

>   jIvummeH jIghun

>I'm not sure I like that though... other suggestions?

Ow.  I *do* sorta like it.  The "ow" is because I didn't think of it.
Still, it's a somewhat idiomatic use of "vum"; maybe better would be {Huch
vIbajmeH jIghun}.

~mark


Back to archive top level