tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Aug 20 19:56:34 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: HoghwIj
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: HoghwIj
- Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 22:58:12 -0400 ()
- Priority: NORMAL
On Wed, 20 Aug 1997 12:54:13 -0700 (PDT) [email protected]
wrote:
> In a message dated Tue, 19 Aug 1997 13:26:30 -0400 (EDT), charghwI' wrote:
>
> > >
> > > loQ Dalmo' povvam, HoghHom vISIQbogh vIDel vIneH.
> >
> > wejpuH.
>
> I've always wondered about this word - when Okrand writes "charming, used
> only ironically," does he also mean that this can be used sarcastically? -
> that's the impression I've gotten from its use. i.e., wejpuH would be used
> when you mean exactly the opposite of "charming", such as "bol ghaH 'ej ghu
> Da - wejpuH"
The first time I met Okrand, he told of how he built the
original vocabulary. One segment consisted of translating all
the English lines said by Klingons in the script for ST3. When
Kruge was describing the Genesis torpedo to his two officers,
describing the image of a previously barren planet covered with
what can only be generalized as Federation suburbia, after an
appropriate pause, I believe he snarled, "Charming".
I'm sure Sustel and others can more precisely recall the scene
and if the word was used or not. Anyway, that has always been
the spirit I've felt appropriate for the word. It registers
repulsion; a polite rejection as if handling something while one
does not wish to get any of it on oneself while placing it at a
safe distance.
> > > vaghleS DuSaQ'a'Daq jIghojchoHta'. pa' De'wI' QeD vIHaD.
> > > wa'Hu' 'uQ vIchoptaHvIS, 'oy'choH woSwIj. chIch qabwIj nIHDop
> > vIrIQmoHpu'
> >
> > Do you really intend all these {-ta'}mey and {-pu'}mey to be
> > perfective? You keep giving us time stamps for when something
> > has been something. Why not give us the time stamp for when the
> > action actually happens? Or is that what you are doing and you
> > add perfective when you would be using past tense in English?
>
> reH loQ mojaqmeyvetlhmo' jImIStaH.
This is a common error. Consider that in English, we tell
stories based upon constant reference to the present time
according to the reader/listener/speaker. That's why we use the
past tense so much.
In Klingon, you give a time stamp of some sort and tell the
story relative to that stamp. If time passes, you give a new
time stamp and continue to tell the story set at that new time.
The perfective and {-ta'} are only necessary to set an action as
having been complete at the time of the time stamp in force at
that point in the story. Similarly {-lI'} and {-taH} apply to
the quality of completeness of the action and the degree of
intentionality at that point in the story, still tied to the
time stamp.
> > 'ej qatlh chIch bI'oy''eghmoH?
>
> <bong> vIqonta' vIneH. <chIch> <bong> je vIDuD.
Imagine that you are in a tree. You intend to break off a
branch. As you do so, you hear, "chIch". Unfortunately, you lose
your balance and accidentally fall out of the tree. When you
land, you hear, "bong".
Now, you should never confuse these two word again for the rest
of your life!
> > > chaq to'waQDu' SomrawDu' joq vIrIQmoH. DaH qabwIj
> > > nIHDopDaq QaplaHchu'be' Huy'wIj qoghwIj tlhonwIj qevpobwIj wuSDu'wIj je
> > > SomrawDu'.
> >
> > yIyep! bIqan'a'? *stroke* Daghajchugh vaj yIloSQo'!
> >
> > > ru' ghu'vam qab 'e' vItul. tugh qabwIj pojmeH Qel vISuch.
> >
> > tugh? DaH! nom yIghoS!
> >
>
> wa'maH chorgh ben jIboghpu'. *stroke* vISIQpu'be'. Qel vISuchta'DI',
> ghewmo' rop vIghaj 'e' Har Qel. Hergh vIghupnIS neH, 'ej DaHjaj 'IwwIj
> pojnISlu'. 'ach taDtaH qabwIj.
bIpIvqa'jaj!
jIpIvqa'jaj je! DaHjaj muHaqta' Qel. ram. tugh jISuvqa'!
charghwI'