tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Dec 17 09:53:11 2003

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: Klingon WOTD: taH (v)

David Trimboli ([email protected])

From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Klingon WOTD: taH (v)
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 10:58:06 -0500
References: <[email protected]> <004901c3c47f$c7311840$8f00a8c0@andyleetbox>

From: "Andrew Marrington" <[email protected]>

> "Star Trek VI as canonical" wIlajba'chugh....
>
> <<taH pagh taHbe'>> jatlh Hamlet. "To be or not to be" mugh Dochvam 'e'
> lujatlh DIvI' nIHwI'pu'. vaj "to exist" mugh <<taH>>.
>
> To the Beginning Grammarian: Does that even vaguely resemble anything
which
> makes sense? I was trying to say:
>
> "If we accept Star Trek VI as canon....
>
> Hamlet says <<taH pagh taHbe'>>. The Federation's thieves say that this
> translates as "To be or not to be". Therefore, <<taH>> translates as "to
> exist"."

Not really.  Hamlet's soliloquy is about him wondering if it's worth
continuing to live or not.  In that context, "to go on or not to go on"
makes perfect sense.

SuStel
Stardate 3960.7

References:
- Re: Klingon WOTD: taH (v)
  - From: Steven Boozer <[email protected]>
- Re: Klingon WOTD: taH (v)
  - From: "Andrew Marrington" <[email protected]>

Prev by Date: Re: Klingon WOTD: laQ (v)
Next by Date: Re: Klingon WOTD: taH (v)
Prev by thread: Re: Klingon WOTD: taH (v)
Next by thread: Re: Klingon WOTD: taH (v)
Index(es):