tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Jul 02 22:41:38 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: jIchegh tulajchugh
Alan Anderson wrote:
> jIja'pu':
> >lu'. jIngaj. mu' mach vIlo'. pagh mojaq vIchel.
>
> ja' peHruS:
> >Does {jIngaj} mean "I'll be brief," or "I'll be short (as in using only short
> >words)?" I can't figure this one out, ghunchuwI'. {ngaj} refers to "short
> >duration of time," stative verb. Thus, I have to think that you are
> >attempting to take on the persona of time. jImISqu. yIQIj.
>
> qay' nuq? Since you correctly understand the word {ngaj} as referring to
> time, I assume you would understand {jIngaj} as "I'll be brief" instead of
> "I'll be short (in physical distance)." Thus I really have no idea what is
> confusing you, and I have no idea what you want me to explain. Whatever it
> is that keeps us from communicating appears still to be in place.
>
> -- ghunchu'wI'
Actually, this would've stumped me too. It's not you that will be short it's your
sentences, comments, or explanations (whatever you were talking about). It's
probably fine to say {jIngaj} but, at this point in time, I wouldn't use it and I
can't talk myself into agreeing with it. I've been told plenty of times that I'm
not specific enough in my Klingon and so I've been trying to be cautious how I
word things. If I were intending to say that my sentences would be short then I
would say {ngaj mu'tlheghmeywIj}. I can understand why you said it the way you
did and I understand the components of the sentence but I would've struggled with
the translation if you said it to me (and by the way I know you weren't talking to
me and I don't mean to offend by intruding). This isn't as crystal clear as you
think, at least not to some people. I rarely agree with peHruS but on this point
I'd have to second the vote.
K'ryntes