tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Jul 23 12:41:55 1993

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

"yInga''egh!"...?



>From: [email protected] (Emperor Krenath)
>Date: Fri, 23 Jul 93 11:23:51 EST
>Content-Length: 199

>Does the above [yInga''egh for those whose mailers ate the subject -mark]
>look correct?  I'm sure you can derive the intended translation, 
>a favored American invective, without my having to post such language on the 
>Language List {{>:->

I'm sure I saw someone else already suggest this after I posted the list
of words, and no, in my opinion it is not correct, except perhaps as jargon
or slang.  There is no verb "*nga'" in our current corpus (which we tend to
treat as the whole of the language, since it's all we have).  It's not
there.  Really.  All we have is "nga'chuq", which *seems* (and almost
surely is) derived from a putative root "*nga'", but *that* root isn't with
us any longer.  No more correct would it be to insist on referring to a
ship as a "*Do'" based of "'ejDo'/Starship" and "'ejyo'/starfleet" (see
section 3.2.3).  Or to say in English that someone "lawys", since "lawyer"
is *obviously* the verb "lawy" plus the agentive "-er".  It's very
possible, even likely, tha "*nga'" existed and behaved as you assume, but
unless we want to neologize (and the tendency here from what I've seen is
not to), you should be careful how you use it.  I'd imagine anyone would
understand such a phrase, but if it weren't current Klingon it would likely
sound more archaic and perhaps flowery than obscene, and certainly couldn't
come close to a well-delivered "taHqeq!"

Just my .02 Huch-units

>- voDleH Qenatlh

~mark, the less grandiose.



Back to archive top level