tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Aug 10 11:50:52 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC++ : Some Questions on {jatlh}, {ghom}, etc.
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: KLBC++ : Some Questions on {jatlh}, {ghom}, etc.
- Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 14:32:42 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
- Priority: NORMAL
On Sun, 9 Aug 1998 15:32:06 -0700 (PDT) Dawut Duy'a'
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Stardate 9808.09
>
> Greetings.
>
> While composing an email communiqué, I rendered {maghomqa'} for
> "we meet again" and as a result several questions have been conjured.
>
> In the spirit of {qajatlh} "I speak to you/I speak with you", would it
> be acceptible to say, {qaghomqa'} for "I meet you again" or {choghomqa'}
> for
> "you meet me again"; or should these be fully expanded to {maghomchuqqa'
> maH} "we meet/encounter each other again" and so on?
Okrand has used {ghom} both transitively and intransitively, so
apparently, it doesn't need {-chuq}, though that would not be
necessarily wrong to use it. In other words, all of the
following would be correct:
maghomqa'.
choghomqa'.
qaghomqa'.
maghomchuqqa'.
While I don't have the quotes with me, the references I have are:
S15, HolQeD 4.3, TKW p184, TKD p170. I fully expect voragh won't
be far behind me...
> Some related questions were also manifested in my mind.
>
> The {qajatlh} Situation:
> We've seen {qajatlh} in "canon" for "I speak to you/I speak with you".
> The Postal Course includes {qaghItlh} for "I write to you".
That probably should not be there. It's a stretch, since
{ghItlh} is not the best word for "write" in the sense of
"correspond" and when I see {qaghItlh}, I have an image of
someone tatooing someone.
> We've also
> seen mention of their expanded/alternate forms, {SoHvaD jIjatlh} and
> {SoHvaD jIghItlh}, making use of the {-vaD} suffix's "for, intended for"
> connotation. Here's the question: Does {SoHvaD jIjatlh} carry both
> meanings of "I speak to/with you" (as in directly addressing someone)
> and "I speak for you" (as in speaking on behalf of someone)?
Someone might stretch the meaning that far, but since we have
the verb {'oS} which would more clearly carry your second
meaning, I would not count on {X-vaD jatlh} carrying that
meaning without a lot of support from context. I'd consider it
an acceptable, but sloppy way of expressing that idea.
Informally, with lots of context, it would be fine. Any other
setting, it is very weak.
> -Hypothetical example of question-
> ghojmoHwI': (checking chronometer) qatlh bIpaS be'?
> loD: (beginning to speak on behalf of be') ropmo' paS ghaH 'ach...
> be': (standing, addressing loD) SoHvaD yIjatlhQo'. jIHvaD jIjatlhlaH.
Better would obviously be:
be': HI'oSQo'! jI'oS'eghlaHba'!
> --
> Teacher: Why are you late woman?
> Man: She's late because she's sick, but...
> Woman: Don't speak for me. I can speak for myself.
>
> The Pronouns-with-Prefixes Situation:
> We all know (or at least heard/read) about clipped Klingon, which is an
> art unto itself. Aside from clipped Klingon, we see short-cuts or
> shortened phrases quite frequently. Most would write/speak {qaHoH} for
> "I kill you" instead of the expanded {SoH HoH jIH}. First Question:
> Wouldn't the {qa-} prefix still be required for {SoH qaHoH jIH}?
teHba'.
> Second
> Question: Are the expanded renderings more correct or more grammatically
> preferred?
ghobe'. The expanded versions exist for emphasis only:
qaHoH. "I kill you."
SoH qaHoH jIH. "It is /I/ who kills YOU!"
This is the sort of thing you'd say if before the statement, it
was clear that killing was happening, but there was some
question as to who was killing and who was being killed.
> Thanks to all who offer questions/comments regarding this post.
>
> tlhIngan maH!
> reH tlhInganpu' taHjaj!
> wa' Dol nIvDaq matay'DI' maQap.
> batlh maSuvtaHvIS maHeghjaj.
> manajtaHvIS qeylIS qa' wIghomjaj.
> ratlh vaghvatlh Hut jajmey.
qaSpa' nuq ratlh vaghvatlh Hut jajmey?
> *****
> Dawut (David)
> [email protected]
> ICQ: 5051089
>
> ______________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
charghwI'