tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Oct 28 07:16:49 2010

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

RE: A request for assistance

Felix Malmenbeck ([email protected]) 

Really, we should call up Keith R.A. DeCandido and ask him to put a Klingon equivalent of roses in his next "Klingon Empire"-book ;)

ghItlhta' Jlyeater
> what about tlhoghnay', a fragrant night-blooming flower?

Is this a tlhIngan Hol spelling of Throgni (mentioned in "Star Trek: Federation Travel Guide")?

ghItlhta' QeS 'utlh
> Admittedly, {chal} here may simply to be  interpreted as "sky" (as English
> "buttercup", say), but it's as close as  we've got, and clearly the Klingon
> flower is also associated with beauty.  With that the case, I'd translate
> "*chal* flower" as {chal tI}. And for  "thorn", I'm surprised that no-one's
> mentioned {DuQwI'} "spike", which is  the best and to my mind only genuine
> candidate. So for "Without Thorn The  Rose" I would say {DuQwI' Hutlhbogh
> chal tI} "the *chal* plant that lacks  thorn(s)", with the caveat that {chal
> tI} has only very shaky canon  support.

chal tI makes sense, although one should ask her whether it needs to be a rose, or if some Klingon equivalent will do fine.
One might also consider bang tI {lover's plant}, perhaps throwing in 'IQ {beautiful} or Doq {orange/red} (or Doqqu' {very orange/red ≈ "red"}).  This conveys both endearment and scent (because among Klingons, reH bang larghlu').
tera' parmaq tI {Terran romance plant} might also work.

Also, might wanna throw in an -'e' on the subject of the -bogh-phrase (although though I suppose it's quite clear that the topic is the plant which lacks thorns, rather than the thorns lacked by a plant).

ghItlhta' lojmIt tI'wI' nuv
> I wonder whether a Klingon would consider a rose's thorn to be closer
> associated with DuQwI' or with naHjej. We've translated the latter to "thistle",
> but we can't know that it is not a more generic word for any plant that has
> parts that would be considered "sharp".

It would certainly be nice if we could use naHjej, considering the dual meaning of DuQwI' (apart from "spike", it can also be taken to mean "thing which touches one emotionally"; a rose without those wouldn't be a very good rose at all).

ghItlhta' lojmIt tI'wI' nuv
> lso, consider that in English, we use the term "flower" both to refer to the
> assembly of petals and the immediate structure that holds them in place,
> and also for the whole plant, including roots, and anything in between.
> Consider cut flowers, for instance, vs. potted flowers, or flowers woven
> into your hair. They are all flowers, so long as they include the petals.

Very true.

Back to archive top level