tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Dec 05 10:42:54 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Why bother with pong?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1996 15:39:07 -0800
>From: [email protected] (JEFF ZEITLIN)
>
>
>T::>>>*'orqut* jIH
> ::>>*'orqut* nuq?
> ::>>What's an 'orqut? What species is that?
> ::>>"I am an 'orqut" or "I am 'orqut", etc.....
> ::>>
> ::>It works in other languages.
> ::>"Hello, I'm Roger.
>
> ...to which the obvious immediate response is "Klingon isn't
> other languages".
>
> Different languages will have different constructs, which may
> appear idiomatic to those unfamiliar with the language. For
> example, if I correctly remember the vague memories of having
> attempted to learn Hebrew once in my youth, you can't say "I
> have ..."; the literal translation of the Hebrew that one uses
> in such a context is "To me there is ..."
Correct. Hebrew lacks a verb "to have"; it's expressed by a verb of
existence and a dative/genitive (yesh li... /to me there is.... Notably at
least in Hebrew this construction *properly* should only be used with
indefinite objects [Hebrew distinguishes definite from indefinite]. For
definite things you might say "the book is by me/under my
jurisdiction"/hasefer `etzli. Some speakers, especially foreign ones, are
less careful about this, buyt most native speakers, I think, will agree.
In fact, some foreign speakers even go so far as to use the
direct-object-marking particle on the object when it's definite, which is
completely unsupported, since it's not an object!) The same state of
affairs exists in Welsh and Sanskrit and Russian as well, I believe.
> Klingon has its own grammar and constructs; it is not simply an
> encoding for English. Idiomatic constructs that work in
> English may be meaningless in Klingon. Don't try to translate
> English or English constructs into Klingon; try to think in
> Klingon.
Very true.
> That said, I have a question for the list at large - does
> <<yIngachuqegh>> mean what I think it means, and is it as
> insulting in Klingon as what I think it means is in English?
> And no, I'm not using it to anyone here - someone used it to me
> today, and I want to make sure I understand it properly before
> I go back and lay him out good.
I can't tell... it looks like "yInga'chuq'egh" which is a cross between
"mate with yourself" and "mate with each other" because it has two type-1
verb suffixes, which isn't legal.
~mark
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.4, an Emacs/PGP interface
iQB1AwUBMqcXocppGeTJXWZ9AQFxkgMAsSyUtzJF1FmYrwgSADKKkVOi1gHvvWHx
weglOYQysqedpiKDnvXEuDntiop+QB4ReRZbi9QexY3i9SmNDEgU7URbeqxN+3MF
941ll2H302Ksx1Eastj85a6HEpNMt6iL
=hKX/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----