tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Jan 14 14:16:57 1998

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: tlhIngan vIDalaw'

According to TPO:
> 
> >> jIjangqa' 'e' loS ghaH
> >
> >jIjangqa'meH loS.
> >
> >charghwI'
> 
> The reason I wrote this using 'e' is because TKD lists loS as "wait (for)".

I understand what you did and did not consider it to be
obviously wrong. It just sounded awkward to my ear and I was
suggesting something that sounded (to me) less awkward. It was
something I would not have even mentioned, except for the
momentum of correcting other things which really were errors.
Please don't take it TOO seriously.

> 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].

The "(for)" most likely is there to explain the proper
relationship in English between {loS} and its direct object.
Meanwhile, if you use it intransitively, like we've seen with
other transitive verbs like {Sop}, there really isn't that much
difference between "wait for something not specified" and
"wait".

If, remaining in English the whole time, I translate "discuss"
as "talk about" such that the sentence "This group discusses
Klingon gramar," equals "This group talks about Klingon
grammar," then if I don't mention what we discuss and just say,
"The discussion group discusses", it really is the same thing
as saying, "The discussion group talks about," even though the
latter sounds extremely awkward. That latter sentence would
probably just be translated as "The discussion group talks."

> jIjangqa'meH loS = he [wait for] for the purpose that I answer again.
> 
> jIjangqa' 'e' loS = he [wait for] it. (it = I answer again)
> 
> Do you see where I'm coming from?

Yes. You are most likely completely correct. I also believe
that my version is as correct. I doubt either can be considered
clearly superior. It is just a matter of style. You didn't seem
to use {-meH} in several places I would have and the momentum
carried me onward to make the suggestion.

> If loS was listed as only [wait] and not [wait (for)], then I would have
> written it the same way you did.

If it was listed as "wait for" and not "wait (for)" I would
have had more of a tendency to write it as you did. I think
Okrand is offering us the translation of this verb for both
transitive and intransitive meanings. Otherwise, why bother
with the perenthesis?

> Do we have canon on this?

No.

> DloraH
> www2.rpa.net/~cheesbro
> (last updated: 31 Dec 97)
> 
> 

charghwI'

Back to archive top level