tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Feb 12 09:34:32 2004

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: nom ghel, nom jang

David Trimboli ([email protected]) [KLI Member] [Hol po'wI']

From: "Lieven L. Litaer (Quvar)" <[email protected]>
> >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.

When Okrand talks about this in KGT, he doesn't give a way to speak of jobs
as part of a term of address; he just says you can't do it like titles.  I
suspect that the word could be used in apposition, but not in a formulaic
way.

qImla', DeghwI', vIlegh.
I see Kimla, the helmsman.

That doesn't give me license to start calling him {qImla' DeghwI'} all the
time.  {qImla' ghaH.  DeghwI' ghaH.  DeghwI' ghaH qImla''e'}, any more than
someone could use "Kimla, helmsman" every time he commands his helmsman to
do something.

> >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"

Ehhhhh . . . I see what you're getting at, but I don't buy it.  The ship, as
a concept, has an associated word to represent it.  The ship is an object,
and the word that represents it is a property of that object.  No, I think
that's too stretched.

> >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'. ;-)

bIlugh.  DIp 'oHbe' Duj'e', 'ach DIp 'oH <Duj>'e'.  :)

SuStel
Stardate 4116.6

Back to archive top level