tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Feb 28 06:04:33 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: ram chal wanI'
ghItlh Lawrence quv:
><<Hol>>. And yet, when I saw DaQtIq's piece, and the line:
>
> chal SIj qeylIS betleH
>
>I simply had to read more! First, because I can't recall ever seeing
>anyone use the verb "SIj" before, and second because it was such a
>splendid image.
choquvmoH, jupwI'.
>I don't know if "Hovghom" is canonical, and if it's not then I'm quite
>impressed. Most of us tend to shy away from constructing compound
>nouns, for fear that they won't be readily understood by others. In
>most cases this is a very reasonable concern, and probably the best
>course to take. But "Hovghom" works. Even without the context, it's
>got to mean "constellation." Of course, if this is already a canonical
>word from TKW or the CD, then I'm less impressed. ;)
I'm not aware of any canonical usage. It could be construed as a star
cluster, but since i also mentioned the Pleadies...
>> DIch vIghajbe'.
>
>This is on my list of grammatical details I want to pry out of Okrand.
>Does one "possess" certainty? (This by the way is precisely the sort of
>word I'd expect to find a Klingon verb for). You can argue that while
>this is an abstraction, one can possess it just as we can say one
>possesses honor (no TKD or TKW handy, but I'm fairly certain [sic] that
>we have canonical examples using "have" with honor). But does that make
>it appropriate to use with "DIch?" I understood what DaQtIq intended,
>but I don't know if it's grammatical. SuStel? Seqram?
I'll defend myself with the canon phrase: <pIch vIghajbe'!>
>>ram chalDaq puvwI' puS tu'lu'.
>
>This one confused me a bit. "puvwI'" is still a little too open-ended
>for me. Lots of things fly.
Agreed. I was writing this offline and i had forgotten ghunchu'wI''s
<raQpo'Duj> for airplane. If it pleases the council, i'll amend my
previous post, replacing all <puvwI'>s with <raQpo'Duj>s.
>>chaq juH DungDaq jIQong.
>
>This ending makes me wonder if perhaps we should begin translating James
>Taylor songs into Klingon?
Nah... Let's write new tlhInganna' songs!
>So, all in all, I find myself well rewarded for taking the time (alas,
>quite a bit of time) to work through DaQtIq's prose. The fault is my
>own, and I suspect I'm quite a bit better for the effort. Thanks!
majQa'! chaq DaH wanI' Datu'bogh Daqon. maqeqnIStaH!
- DaQtIq