tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Dec 17 08:37:40 1998

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: KLBC: nuQbogh jaj

On Wed, 16 Dec 1998 15:14:48 -0800 (PST) Christiane Scharf 
<[email protected]> wrote:

> ghunchu'wI' wrote:
> 
> > ja' HovqIj:
> > >ghaytan wa' jaj bIjor 'ej bIQID'eghchu' qoj latlhpu' DaQIDchu'.
> > >rut QeHlIj DatlhabmoH 'e' qaq law' QeHlIj DavI' 'e' qaq puS.
> > >[...]
> > >You probably dislike that I used a sentence with <'e'> as the subject of
> > >the <law' / puS> construction, right? I wouldn't have dared to do this,
> > >but I'm _quite_ sure we have canon for this (one of the skybox cards, I
> > >think). If I am wrong here, I am going to accept it.

I'm QUITE sure you are wrong here. It should not be the burden 
of proof for everyone else to come up with proof that you didn't 
see something the rest of us are quite certain doesn't exist. In 
one of the HolQeD issues, an interview with Okrand explained the 
limits of {law'/puS}. It infuriated Krankor, who had been 
exploring means of expanding {law'/puS} useage, since what 
Okrand said invalidated pretty much everything Krankor had been 
trying to do. He was understandably disappointed.

Perhaps what you remember is something Krankor wrote. Whatever 
the case, I'm quite willing to go out on a limb here and assure 
you that what you have done here has no basis in any canon or 
any description of Klingon grammar.

Coming back with more, "Yeah, but I have this funny feeling that 
I've seen it somewhere before on a Skybox Card" is not going to 
impress anybody. Just give it up, unless you happen to find that 
Skybox card example yourself.

charghwI' 'utlh

> > I can see what you are trying to say here, and I think I see how you
> > are trying to say it:
> >
> > "That you sometimes free your anger is preferable to that you accumulate
> > your anger."
> >
> > Someone needs to hit you with a painstick!  Unless you can come up with
> > this purported canon, you're *way* off base here.  {'e'} is always used
> > as the object of a sentence, and by your own explanation you're trying
> > to use it as a subject.  That's even assuming that the noun phrases in
> > a {law'/puS} construction even count as subjects.
> >
> > If *I* am wrong here, and there *is* canon precedent, *I* am of course
> > going to accept it. :-)
> 
> I definitely understand why you don't like it. But I really have this strange
> feeling I've seen it before. I'm probably just wrong. Voragh? 
> DujlIj yIvoq. 'ach yIvoq 'ach yI'ol.
> 
> >
> >
> > This sort of idea is one of the places where I think {-ghach} actually
> > works well: {QeHlIj tlhabmoHghach qaq law' QeHlIj vI'moHghach qaq puS.}
> 
> There are likely many better solutions than mine, I didn't think too much
> about it when I wrote it.
> 
> 
> HovqIj
> 
> >
> >
> > -- ghunchu'wI'

Back to archive top level