tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Aug 16 21:15:29 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC - QInwIj Qav Soppu' De'wI' jay'!
ja' tuv'el:
><snicker> I figured there really isn't a *big* difference between "l & b
>are v'gro," and "The v'gro are l & b."
I, however, *do* see a difference in the Klingon translations. I do not
view the Klingon version of "to be" as indicating identity the way English
often does. The roles of subject and object in an English copula are a
little blurred, but I see them as quite specific in Klingon. With one
exception, all the examples I know of use the verbal "to be" meaning of
pronouns as either indicating category or specifying which of a group of
things something belongs to with a type 4 suffix on the object noun. The
exception is a little slippery: {'entepray' 'oH DoS'e'} *can* be viewed
through the "categorizer" filter, though it is apparently intended to be
a simple identity relationship.
"Lursa and B'etor are cats" describes l & b. They are cats, as opposed
to dogs, or computers, or garbage scows. {vIghro' bIH.}
"The cats are Lursa and B'etor" describes the cats. They are the ones
having these names, as opposed to the ones having other names, or the
ones underneath the bed, or the ones with fluorescent fur. {l b je bIH.}
-- ghunchu'wI'