tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Jan 24 10:54:12 2006

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

Re: HIvchuq

Steven Boozer ([email protected])



Voragh:
>   chorghSaD qelI'qam HIvchuq'e' vInoH
>   Estimating attack range in 8,000 kellicams. (ST5)

Philip:
 > Does that mean that {HIvchuq} is canon for "attack range"?  I don't
 > have that in my wordlist (only {HIv} (v.) and {chuq} (n.) as separate
 > words).

Voragh:
>We've ever seen it written officially IIRC so we don't know if it's one
>word {HIvchuq} or two words {HIv chuq}.  But there's {HIvDuj} "attack
>fighter" (KGT & HQ 1.3). It appears to be another of those odd verb + noun
>compounds like {QongDaq} "bed", or evidence of an hitherto unattested,
>possibly obsolete, noun.
>
>BTW we also have {HIvHe} "attack course" (n.) from the same movie with the
>same caveats:
>
>    HIvHe yIchoHmoH!
>    Alter the attack course! ST5

Philip:
 >Define "from the movie" -- was the spelling used in subtitles or
 >closed-captioning? Was it obtained from a production script? Or where
 >did the spelling come from?

It's from my own transcription, checked and refined over the years by 
others who've transcribed the Klingon lines from the movie themselves and 
discussed in detail here on the List.

As it happens subtitles, captioning and scripts are not reliable and have 
their own problems.  Over the years we've seen much distorted tlhIngan Hol 
due to either sloppy keyboarding by a typist or, more likely, an attempt to 
provide a more user-friendly phonetic transcription for the actors.  If 
we're lucky, the text can be reconstructed fairly easily.  (And let's not 
even talk about closed captions being distorted into alpha-numeric 
gibberish during transmission!)

The only unequivocal and authoritative written text would be Okrand's own 
notes which he sent to Paramount.  Occasionally Okrand quotes a line from 
one of the movies in HolQeD which we can use as a check or to add 
punctuation to our transcriptions.

 >(If it originated from a transcription of spoken words that someone
 >heard and wrote down, for example, all spelling is a matter of
 >conjecture anyway.)

No.  Except for names, it isn't.  We know the rules of Okrand's 
transcription system, we know how existing vocabulary is spelled (from the 
TKD and KGT glossaries), and we know the grammar and affixes so we're 
pretty confident when transcribing Okrand's dialogue - except on minor 
points, such as whether {HIvchuq} and {HIvHe} is one word or two.  But 
since we know {HIvDuj} is in the lexicon, the one word version seems more 
likely by a "preponderance of the evidence" (as they say in those TV court 
shows).

That's not to say we've never been wrong.  For years most of us used 
*{'IwHIq} since the Standard term was almost always spelled "bloodwine", so 
some of use were surprised when Okrand eventually published it as two words 
{'Iw HIq} in KGT and HolQeD 13.1.  But we accepted it and were able to 
adjust our transcriptions:

   HIq qIj reghuluS 'Iw HIq ghap jab
   They serve Black Ale or Regulan bloodwine. CK

BTW, the text of CK and PK have also never been officially published 
AFAIK.  Would you have us discount all of that data?  Fortunately for us 
Okrand's pronunciation in the tapes is much clearer than that of the actors 
in the movies and episodes.



--
Voragh
Ca'Non Master of the Klingons






Back to archive top level