tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Feb 12 07:20:43 2004

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: nom ghel, nom jang

Lieven L. Litaer (Quvar) ([email protected]) [KLI Member] [Hol ghojwI']

Am 12.02.2004 00:17:10, schrieb "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>:

>Mind you, I'm not saying it's wrong.  

Good. And I am not saying it's right :-)

>I only see people do it with {mu'},
>and not a dozen other things they use in apposition in English, making me
>think that it's their native language that is influencing this usage.

In my case I didn't just translate "the word ship" into Klingon, and I wasn't thinking of apposition or 
so. I was thinking in Klingon, while making my question. I started with {DIp 'oH'a' Duj'e'... ghobe', 
lengmeH jan 'oH. Duj vIbuvlaHbe', 'ach mu' Segh vIbuvlaHbej. vaj mu' qelnISlu'law'. mu' qellu'bogh 
vIngu': Duj mu' 'oH.

>Now consider: Klingon doesn't have articles.  
[...]
>but what you say hasn't changed.  The lack of articles in Klingon makes this
>ambiguity exist where it can't in English.

That's why I (personally) think that Klingons would avoid the ambiguity, just making clear that one 
talks about the "word" that is a noun.

>I doubt this.  Ranks and titles go after a name, but other things, like ship
>function, do not.  You can't say {qImla' DeghwI'} as a name for "Helmsman
>Kimla."  I don't see any reason why we should extend the rules for titles to
>words and {mu'}.

Okay, maybe not with {mu'}, but what about the other words? How do I say "Helmsman Kimla"?
There are only two possibilities, and if it were up to me to choose, I'd take a parallel to what we do 
with ranks: {qImla' HoD}, {qImla' DeghwI'}, {qImla' vavnI'}.
(Yes, this is ambiguous too, it could mean "Kimla's captain".)

In my ears this sounds like the terran apposition "Kimla, the helmsman". I don't know if that's 
possible like that in Klingon

{nubejtaH qImla' DeghwI'}
   should be read
{nubejtaH qImla' (DeghwI')}

What's the other possibility? {DeghwI' qImla'}!
That sounds wrong cause it's too terran. I would see *this* as a lousy translation based on one's native 
language.

>Klingon noun-noun constructions are genitive, not appositive.  I don't think
>this works, either.
I don't see this as appositive, but genetive (if that is possible at all, maybe I'm just completely wrong 
here :-)
Not "Ship, the word"
But "the ship's word"

>I think we can just say the word.  Sometimes a more explicit construction
>might help.
>
>DIp 'oH <Duj>'e'.
>DIp 'oH mu'vam'e': <Duj>.

Yes, I'd accept the second construction, but my Klingon mind still tells me that DIp 'oHbe' Duj'e'. ;-)

Quvar.

P.S. general disclaimers apply: this is all just based on my personal opinion and sense for language; I 
do not want to convince anyone about my opinion, but I would just like to discuss different aspects of 
the language.

Back to archive top level