tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Oct 05 08:23:56 2004

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

• Index by Date
• Index by Thread
• Index by Author

Re: tu'HomI'raH - canon source?

Lieven L. Litaer ([email protected])

• From: "Lieven L. Litaer" <[email protected]>
• Subject: Re: tu'HomI'raH - canon source?
• Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 17:24:31 +0200
• In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
• Organization: qepHom.de
• References: <[email protected]>
• User-agent: Opera7.11/Win32 M2 build 2887

Quvar:
>> >We have canon:
>> >  {HurDaq tu'HomI'raHvetlh yIlan!}
>> >   "Get that piece of junk out of here!" KCD


christoph.pichlmann:
>> nuqDaq tu'lu'laH?

you have two type5 suffixes here.
literally translated, this sounds like
  "where can it is found?"

I know, that's a problem, and there is no real answer.
Because of that, Maltz proposed two slang suffixes: {-luH} and {-la'} which 
can be used instead.
{nuqDaq 'oH tu'luH?}

"Where can it be found?"
"Where is some indefinite subject able to discover it?"

A non-slang way to say this is {nuqDaq 'oH tu'laH vay'?}

Anyway, I would just say {nuqDaq tu'lu'?}

Quvar.

• References:
  • Re: tu'HomI'raH - canon source?
    • From: Steven Boozer <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: Klingon WOTD: chuyDaH (n-pl)
• Next by Date: Re: ??Hoch Satlho'qu'
• Previous by thread: Re: tu'HomI'raH - canon source?
• Next by thread: Re: Re: tu'HomI'raH - canon source?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

Back to archive top level