tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Oct 31 08:52:44 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC - Trick or Treat
- From: "Dr. Lawrence M. Schoen" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: KLBC - Trick or Treat
- Date: Wed, 30 Oct 96 12:49:15 -0800
- Organization: West Chester University
> Re: KLBC - Trick or Treat
Recalling one of my museum lectures (probably at the Franklin Institute)
Seqram wrote:
>
> He said his first try was "chobelmoH qoj qatoj", which he rather
> liked,
> because it had a nice cadence, and it used "qoj" instead of "pagh",
> implying "you'll please me, or I'll trick you... and hell, I might
> trick
> you anyway!"
I still like that one, I gave it to my psychology classes today.
> I think Lawrence's favorite was just "DaH HInob!" "Give it to me
> NOW!!!" (using HI- as a contraction for jIHvaD and an implied direct
> object, a construction I personally disagree with; it seems you
> really can
> only use that contraction jazz when there is something in the "true"
> Direct
> Object place, even as you can't use an indirect object in English
> without a
> direct object: "John bought Mary a bouquet of flowers" has "Mary" in
> a very
> different role than "John bought Mary."). Something like that is
> probably
> fine. :)
By "true Direct Object place" I'm guessing you mean a stated object, and
not the understood object (which in this context would refer to all the
chocolatey plunder and swag I can carry off). I don't know if I agree
with you on this, and can't recall offhand where such an explicit
objection is stated. As a fine piece of Clipped Klingon it seems quite
economical -- drop the actual d.o. because you can understand it from
context, and drop the actual i.o. because you can specify it with the
imperative prefix. But, maybe I'm reaching.
Lawrence