tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Jan 13 20:50:50 1998

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: tlhIngan vIDalaw'

ghItlh DloraH:

>>> jIjangqa' 'e' loS ghaH
>>
>>jIjangqa'meH loS.
>>
>>charghwI'
>The reason I wrote this using 'e' is because TKD lists loS as "wait (for)".
>
>qI' = sign (a treaty) (v)
>
>A while back many insisted that qI' was ONLY for signing a treaty and not
>for simply signing in general, because the word treaty was included in TKD.
>There were several other examples in that discussion; words which all had
>(something).
>
>loS = wait (for) (v)
>
>So I went along with this for loS, contrary to seeing many people use the
>word for just [wait].

Just my <cha' DeQ>...

If <qI'> was meant to mean ONLY "sign a treaty", why would it not have been
glossed "sign a treaty" instead of "sign (a treaty)"? I believe (a treaty)
is there to differentiate it from another English verb "sign" which might
have been clarified (a letter) or (communicate with hands). To <qI'> is
clearly to affix one's name to a document or other item to indicate
agreement with the document's purpose. I can <qI'> a check or a contract, I
am sure. To affix one's name to a letter, where the signature merely
identifies the writer, is not <qI'> - at least that's MY interpretation.

There are two types of parenthetical info in TKD, examples and usage
clarification. There's no rule as to when one is used or the other, but
common sense helps. <cha'> is "display, show (picture)". But I can certainly
<cha'> text or a graph, even though they're not really "pictures". <je'> is
"feed (someone else)" but if I say to a 3-year-old Klingon <DaH qaje'nIS>
he/she might respond <jIje''eghlaH!>. <HIvje'> "glass (tumbler)" - but mugs
and teacups fit here too.

Only a dent in the possible examples. We must not assume MO has laid out TKD
with anal-retentive regularity (oxymoron?) - we must figure out what is the
most sensible option. They're not all "this is the only option" nor are they
all "this is a suggestion".

Now, "wait (for)" - I'd like to see what Voragh can dig up, but I use <loS>
as an intransitive verb (wait) and as a transitive verb (wait for
someone/thing). I figure - the best strategy in language use is to use it.
I'm not mixing two different senses of "wait" like "act as a waiter" and
"await" - just allowing for an object or none. When I wait, I am waiting for
something, right? So the intransitive use is still waiting "for" something.
I can say <jIloStaH> or <qaloStaH> or <taDchoH ghe''or 'e' vIloStaH> - in
all 3 I must be waiting (for) something. I left it unsaid in the first one,
but to wait implies a thing to be waited for. In these situations,
intransitive use and transitive use are OK in my book.

Qermaq

Back to archive top level