tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Oct 21 14:27:16 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Par'Mach is a Canonical word. Period.
- From: "Joel Anderson" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Par'Mach is a Canonical word. Period.
- Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 14:27:03 -0700
neH parmach wIneH -- all we need is love!
------------------------------------------------------
>joel anderson writes:
>>Par'Mach is NOT a Ferengi word, and if you'll forgive
>>the odd look of it, it seems as good as our standby
>>for love "muSHa'". To me, it is an ironic construction
>>(yes, a compound verb, something we've never seen before,
>>right?) "dislike" (par) + "be little" (mach).
>
>nuqjatlh jay'? A never-before-seen "compound verb" seems as good as a
>straightforward verb+suffix?! I must disagree. Very strongly.
Don't let me stop you.
"muSHa'" is a fine term; I am fond of exchanging goodnight
"qamusHa'"s when saying "maj ram" to my daughter. I used
muSHa'in translating "Jesus Loves Me". HOWEVER.... it is made
up, yes, using the rules, but it ain't in TKD or TKW
or PK or CK - is it?
"parmach" is presented as meaning "love; with more aggressive
overtones." Worf has "a case of it". We don't really know if
it is a verb or noun or both. Perhaps there is a nominal use
of "par" and parmach is, like "nuqneH" a shorthand sentance
for "my dislike is small".
>>To beat my canon-drum, once again, like it or not, it
>>IS a canonical word.
>It's canonical *Star Trek*. It's not canonical tlhIngan Hol,
No. There is NO difference. The distinction is an invented one.
Really. tlhIngan Hol is a subset of Trek, not vice versa.
I *KNOW* it is very enjoyable to tell people what is
"right" and "wrong" on televised Star Trek - I certainly
am happy to tell people why some Trekkies are disturbed
by Par'mach, or "maj ram". But most people are familiar with
the way languages have rules, and usage. Plenty of common
English usage trespasses far and wide from the "proper rules".
I would hope an observer from Qo'noS to Earth would catalog both
proper and collouqial usage in learning our tongues.
>Quantum torpedoes and verteron particles and sonalogen-based lifeforms
>inhabiting tertiary subspace manifolds are also canonical
>Star Trek....
This is more than a little different. We HAVE independant
sources of scientific knowledge. There isn't ANY
independant source of tlhIngan Hol. There aren't any
(okay, maybe one) native speakers of tlhIngan Hol, EXCEPT
as portrayed on film.
> Like it or
>not, tlhIngan Hol as a real constructed language exists with or
>without Star Trek to support it -- or to interfere with it, as the
>case may be.
Well, no, it doesn't.
| |
,'._ Dochvam 'oH vuDwIj'e'. pImlaH vuDlIj. ,'._
' ~ ' ~
\ _____ __ _ _____ /\
/ \ \_ \ / / / / \ | \_ / /
| \ | / \__/ |____/ / | |' | \/
|_ __| / / | | \ /__ \ / \
\ ____| |____ \ \ \
\
__ \ / | _____ ____
/ / / \ ______ / | | | | | |
|____/ _/___ | \ | \ / / /' | '
| \ / |_ __| \ \_/ / / |
\ \__/ | o
|___ / | _ _ __ /\
/ \ / | / \ / / / /
/ \ / | | / / \/
/ \_/ \ /__ /__ \
/ \__ \ \|____ \
\
__ \ _ / | _____
/ / / \ / / | | |
|____/ _/___ | \ / \ / / /
| \ / |_ __| /__ \_/ / /
\ \__/ o
---
joel anderson * [email protected] * [email protected]
mIghghachvo' yImej 'ej yIQaQ; roj yInej 'ej Dochvam yItlha'
----------------------------------------------------------
http://members.aol.com/JPKlingon [email protected]
GALACTIC LANGUAGES: [email protected]
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/4854
---------------------------------------------------------
Get Your *Web-Based* Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
---------------------------------------------------------