tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Feb 08 15:46:52 2001
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: chay' cha' qech lumughlu'?
- From: [email protected]
- Subject: Re: chay' cha' qech lumughlu'?
- Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 16:25:37 -0700
>I must say this is decidedly the least Klingon thing I've translated in a
>very long time. Wittering, vague, indecisive and downright philosophically
>whiny. Any warrior to utter this would be quickly cleansed from the gene
>pool. The mystery surrounding his death would be quickly solved by removing
>all sense of abstract from his death, which would be swiftly made real.
HItIchbe'. {tlhIngan SuvwI'} vIQujbe'qu'. jIHvaD Hol Daj neH. 'ach novna'
Hol 'oHbe' tlhIngan Hol. ngoDvam vISovchu'. DaH mayajchuq'a'?
> I came up with:
> 1. {DIch mobchu' oHtaHvIS Hegh 'ej Hegh poH vISovlaHbe'chu'vIS vaj chay'
> jIvangnISneS?}
>You cannot use the verb suffix {-chu'} on a verb while it is being used
>adjectivally. For that, you are limited to {-qu'}, {-be'} and {-Ha'}, so
jIyajchoH.
>pIq jIHeghbejmo' 'ach HeghwIj wanI' vISovbe'chu'mo' jImIS. chay' jIvangnIS?
wot {-mo'} je lumuvlu''a'?
Qapbe' {jImIS}. chaq Qap {DuH QaQ jInej}.
> 2. {SovtaHghach SovlaH'a' SovwI'?}
>"Can the knower know the continuation of knowing?"
>ngoD vISovlaH. wa' wanI' 'oH. ngoDvam vISov 'e' vISovlaH. latlh wanI' 'oH.
>quqlaH'a' cha' wanI'vam?
>Isn't that really what the philosophical question is asking?
qechvam maQochbe'law'.
nejwI'