tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Dec 11 21:03:35 1993

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

RE: the ship in which I fled

On Dec 11, 11:01pm, Jeremy Cowan wrote:
> Subject: RE: the ship in which I fled
> >From janSIy
> >> Why not just say, <munge'ta'bogh Duj>.  And if context isn't
> >> clear, you can always add <jIHaw'vIS>.
> >From Will Martin       Date: Thu, 9 Dec 93 12:44:32 pm EST
> >      Doesn't that imply that the ship had an intent?  YOU may
> > have accomplished escaping in the ship, but the SHIP probably did
> > not have the goal to take you away, and I think the sense of
> > accomplishment related to -ta' is usually related to the
> > subject,not the object.
> charghwI',
>    jIQaghpu'.  QaghwIj vIlughmoH.  <jIHaw'ta'vIS munge'bogh Duj>.
> janSIy   }}:+D

?????? nuq?

     "The ship which took me away while I had escaped (on purpose) ..."

     Close, but no cigar. I missed pointing out that {jIHaw'vIS} was already
in error. As I often forget, -vIS always requires -taH. I've even written it
by the suffix in the affix table in both my copies of TKD to remind me.
{jIHaw'ta'vIS} is very twisted. I know that in English, "While I escaped..."
makes sense, in Klingon, it is complete gibberish, implying that you were
both in the process of escaping and had intentionally completed the action of
escaping, both at the same time. The better way to say this is
{jIHaw'taHvIS}. As for the three words together making a phrase, it seems to
make sense to me, though it may violate some grammatical rule that escapes me
at the moment. {jIHaw'taHvIS munge'bogh Duj}

     Just for the debate, I know that vIS ALWAYS requires -taH, but doesn't
it seem logical that -lI' would also be a valid choice? It makes even more
sense than -taH, since it clearly speaks to a limited time frame.

     Still, language is not always logical. I will stick to -taHvIS, though I
think this construction was an Okrandian oversight.

--   charghwI'

Back to archive top level