tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Apr 30 09:31:50 2010
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: Already
- From: Terrence Donnelly <[email protected]>
- Subject: RE: Already
- Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2010 09:29:48 -0700 (PDT)
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sbcglobal.net; s=s1024; t=1272644989; bh=ntzuTUi7hnC3GMlefZKBeaozA9nO9PUZjPAMzP5cLDg=; h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=jcm4bqfnYS+/QJlF+eWuAiIL81BUYoSwJEVsyUctN61Dy+BTOqGrSzRQIUTJs7w+zMxenMH2KTWq3yjWhtgbWzS3nq/UouOGy3BQU6LGK2uG+jcBWhFhjLS2dH6l0oSgfZlR4/Ygui/95olQQluZTpu+7XoDdzzwVIaJBHecEtI=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=sbcglobal.net; h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=NeGENeturgTWFb0ObyCUgrQBq041NVg3BDLhkibZ7zIoC4/R3hzCqiJ75bOOQO23xrmGpSZDF7UCrGZ6qaw1Z+8DL8qnfeLi2MnvBvvAuR6W53axmsTk+1kIAMn87NtWvGFfWHM8DQe7dTuryiBePo4LROggzvnU0GXVJTulXTw=;
- In-reply-to: <C305E6BD33E2654DAE1F8F403247B6A60139BD09A46C@EVS02.ad.uchicago.edu>
I have always considered the suffixes {-ta'/-pu'} to carry the idea of "already", as in Okrand's example, since they refer to actions completed in relation to the time of one's conversation.
-- ter'eS
--- On Fri, 4/30/10, Steven Boozer <[email protected]> wrote:
> From: Steven Boozer <[email protected]>
> Subject: RE: Already
> To: "'[email protected]'" <[email protected]>
> Date: Friday, April 30, 2010, 9:45 AM
> buswI':
> >> I recently tried to express that I did not want to
> drink coffee since
> >> I'd already had coffee, but found no klingon word
> for "already". How
> >> ever, there is {wej} for "not yet", so I thought
> that {wejHa'} might
> >> work. But of course, I can't put a {-Ha'} after an
> adverb just as if
> >> it had been a verb...
> >>
> >> OTOH, there are some adverbs that are similarly
> formed, such as
> >> {DoHa'} (unfortunately) and the pair {pIj}
> (frequently) and {pIjHa'}
> >> (infrequently).
>
> HQ 4.4: Whether this {-Ha'} can be added to all
> adverbials is not clear. The notes taken while working with
> Maltz indicate that he balked at {vajHa'} ("not thus?") but
> accepted {Do'Ha'} "unfortunately". Information on other
> adverbials has not yet been uncovered, though it is probably
> in the notes somewhere.
>
>
> >> So would {wejHa'} (or {wejbe'}) count as an
> acceptable neologism? It's
>
> It might, but you can't be sure how it would be
> understood. In my notes I discovered that someone has
> already (!) suggested *{wejHa'} for "yet, ever".
> E.g.:
>
> ? wejHa' qa'vIn Datlhuth'a'
> Do you ever drink coffee?
>
> ? wejHa' qa'vIn Datlhuthpu''a'
> Have you ever drank coffee?
>
>
> >> the kind of construction that might occur as
> slang, for instance.
> >>
> >> {wejHa' qavIn vItlhutlhpu'} "I've already
> had coffee"
> >>
> >> Or is it a deeper reason to the lack of the word?
> It is a bit
> >> superflous, perhaps {qavIn vitlhutlhpu'} would be
> more direct, and
> >> thus more Klingon? Or, for that matter, {qen qavIn
> vItlhutlhpu'} (I
> >> have recently had coffee) would be more precise?
>
> We have one example of Okrand translating "already":
>
> bIHeghvIpchugh bIHeghpu'.
> If you are afraid to die, you have already died.
> (TKW)
>
> Since the lack of a word for "already" didn't bother
> Okrand, I would just say:
>
> qa'vIn vItlhutlhpu'. latlh vIneHbe'.
> I have [already] drank coffee. I don't want
> another (one).
>
>
> On the other hand, I do. Time for my coffee break!
>
>
> --
> Voragh
>
> Canon Master of the Klingons
>
>
>
>
![[KLI Member]](/pics/KLImemberbutton.gif "[KLI Member]"){kind=small}