tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Dec 17 19:47:41 2003

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: Klingon WOTD: taH (v)

Scott Willis ([email protected]) [KLI Member] [Hol po'wI']

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Andrew Marrington" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2003 12:57 PM
Subject: Re: Klingon WOTD: taH (v)

> ma'Sa:
> I
> might've said "if Star Trek VI is accurate", but that it is accurate as a
> story is sort of irrelevant as to whether or not it is "canon" as far as
the
> Klingon language is concerned.

Okrand created the Klingon dialogue and coached the actors for ST VI. It IS
canon. I thought you were saying this only ironically.

> ma'Sa:
> "If we broaden the definition of canon to
> include Star Trek VI" might've been better, although far more problematic
> for such a limited Klingonist as myself! :)

I suspect there are very few on this list that would not call it a
challenge.

> > ngabwI'
> > {mugh} means "to translate", not "to translate as". For this situation,
I
> > would use {'oS} "to represent".

> ma'Sa:
> Ah. Yes, I knew I was going to have problems with this, which is why I did
a
> search of the list archives to see how it had been used in the past (eg
near
> the bottom of this e-mail:
> /tlhIngan-Hol/1993/October/msg00237.html), which led me
to
> believe I could say things like: <<taH pagh taHbe'>> mugh "To be or not to
> be". I take it then, this is wrong, and I misread? Maybe I shouldn't rely
on
> e-mails from 10 years ago....

I would say this is a start, but I think I might need reinforcements....
Do we have any canon on direct objects of {mugh}?

--ngabwI'
Beginners' Grammarian,
Klingon Language Institute
http://kli.org/
HovpoH 700926.9

Back to archive top level