tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Oct 23 19:07:20 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Par'Mach is a Canonical word. Period.
- From: [email protected] (Alan Anderson)
- Subject: Re: Par'Mach is a Canonical word. Period.
- Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 21:10:22 -0500
[wa'Hu' jabbI'IDvam vIngeH. ghochDaj SIchlaw'pu'be' vaj vIngeHqa'.]
ghItlh "joel anderson":
> neH parmach wIneH -- all we need is love!
nuqjatlh? "We want *parmach to want"? <neH> wa'DIch DalanHa'law'.
>"muSHa'" is a fine term; I am fond of exchanging goodnight
>"qamusHa'"s when saying "maj ram" to my daughter.
<qamuSHa'> yajlu'. wot moHaq, wotna', wot mojaq je ngaS.
taQ neH <maj ram>. wot tu'lu'be'. chuvmey lo'Ha'lu'ba'bogh tu'lu'.
TKD lo' vay' 'e' nIDlaw', 'ach lujbej vay'vetlh.
pab qImHa' qoj pab Sovbe'. mu'mey tam neH, 'ej mu' muj wIv.
>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?
mu'ghomDaq mu' 'ay'mey, pab je lutu'lu'bej.
mu'ghomDaq <qachaghvIp> tu'lu'be' je, 'ach mubbej mu'vetlh.
chutmey pabbej.
Hatlaw' <*parmach>. cha' wot DItay'moHlaHbe' maH.
chu'chu' mu'qoqvetlh. rurbogh mu'na' chenmoHlaH "Marc Okrand" neH.
>"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.
DIpHey 'oH 'e' 'ang lo'Daj.
>Perhaps there is a nominal use
>of "par" and parmach is, like "nuqneH" a shorthand sentance
>for "my dislike is small".
chaq. loQ qechvam vIpar, 'ach DuH vay'.
>>It's canonical *Star Trek*. It's not canonical tlhIngan Hol,
>No. There is NO difference. The distinction is an invented one.
pIm net 'ogh net Sov! chIch tlhIngan Hol'e' 'oghlu' jay'!
"Star Trek III"-vaD 'oghbej, 'ach tlhab je.
>Really. tlhIngan Hol is a subset of Trek, not vice versa.
bImujqu'chu'qu'. "Star Trek" 'ay' 'oHbe'ba'qu' tlhIngan Hol.
"Star Trek" qelmeH neH tlhIngan Hol lo'nISbe'lu'.
tlhIngan Hol vIlo'taHvIS "Star Trek" vIbuSbe'laH.
_HolQeD_ DalaDta''a'? motlh "Star Trek" qelbe'bogh mu'mey'e'.
_jatmey_ DalaDta''a'? "Star Trek" qelbe' lutwIj'e'.
<ngav> <mavjop> tIqel -- mu'meyvam lo'pu''a' "Star Trek"?
lulo'lu' net pIH'a'?
Holna' 'oH tlhIngan Hol'e'.
wa'leS ngabchugh "Paramount" "Star Trek" je, taH tlhIngan Hol.
>>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.
jIQochqu'. <'I'> yIqel. mu'vamvaD potlhbe'bej "Paramount"!
wa' tlhIngan Hol Halna' wItu': "Marc Okrand."
HolDaj'e' wIlo'taH. HolDaj lo' "Paramount" 'e' nID je.
mu' "Klingon" SeHchu' "Paramount".
tlhInganpu' Delchu' "Paramount".
'ach tlhIngan Hol 'oghta' "Mark Okrand", 'ej che'taH ghaH neH.
>There aren't any
>(okay, maybe one) native speakers of tlhIngan Hol, EXCEPT
>as portrayed on film.
wejpuH. tlhInganpu' Daqu' neH "Paramount" DawI'pu'.
tlhInganpu'na' chaHbe'. tlhIngan Hol luSovbe' DawI'pu' motlh.
qubqu' tlhIngan Hol SaHbogh DawI''e'.
tlhIngan Hol cha' "Paramount". tlhIngan Hol cherbe' "Paramount".
tlhIngan Hol 'ogh "Marc Okrand" 'e' DIl "Paramount".
tlhIngan Hol che'be' "Paramount". tlhIngan Hol SeHbe' "Paramount".
>> 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.
vuDvam yIQIj.
qatlh Holna' rurbe' tlhIngan Hol?
chay' "Star Trek" wuv tlhIngan Hol?
HIjang!
> | |
> ,'._ Dochvam 'oH vuDwIj'e'. pImlaH vuDlIj. ,'._
> ' ~ ' ~
DaH bIlugh jay'!
SKI: Paramount might define "Klingons", but it doesn't define tlhIngan Hol.
Joel ought to explain his "Well, no, it doesn't" comment.
-- ghunchu'wI'