tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Feb 14 21:23:07 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC:qatlh jIH
- From: [email protected] (Alan Anderson)
- Subject: Re: KLBC:qatlh jIH
- Date: Thu, 15 Feb 1996 00:24:29 -0500
Lord Havelock writes:
>The term jIH can mean "It is I" as much as "I am." tlhIngan Hol makes
>no apparent distinction between the two, except, perhaps, in the use
>of the Type 5 suffix -'e' when the meaning of "I" needs to be emphasised.
Actually, I don't think {jIH} can mean either of these. By itself, it
means merely "I" or "me". My opinion of {qatlh jIH} is that it is not
grammatical, and it isn't even that close to the shorthand "Why me?"
The *words* translate that way, but the phrase does not.
The use of {jIH} as "I am" should *not* include its use by itself. "To
be" isn't a valid Klingon concept. One is *something* or *somewhere*,
but one cannot just "be". I also have a personal bias against letting
pronouns work "in the other direction" -- if you want to indicate true
equality between two things, there are the verbs {rap} and {nIb}.
>qay'be'.
qay'taH. I made an offhand remark about how I consider {qatlh jIH} to
be ungrammatical but closer to "Why am I" than "Why me", and I provoked
a lecture about how {jIH} can mean "it is I". wejpuH.
-- ghunchu'wI' batlh Suvchugh vaj batlh SovchoH vaj