tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Mar 31 15:13:36 1994
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KBTP: Marcan vocabulary
On Thu 31 Mar 94 03:30, "Kevin Wilson (DV 1994)" writes:
>> Originally_From: [email protected]
>>I heard {ngagh} on the tape. ({targhlIj yIngagh yIruch} "Go mate
>>with your targ") Imesho, you should be careful using these words
>>for which we have no written canonical examples. You might be
>>right, but then again, if Okrand ever comes out and tells us it
>>was {ngagh} on the tape instead on {nagh}, you'll have to go back
>>and change every one of those {nagh}'s. What a task.
> When I listened to the tape, I heard {nga'}, which I assumed was a
> shortened for of nga'chuq, giving us a canonical example for using
> {nga'} as a transitive verb without the type 1 suffix. Did anyone
else
> think this?
To me it sounded like "nagh".. I was specifically listening
for a "ng" but didn't hear any. Okrand could have made a mistake
or he simply decided to change it from "nga'" to "nagh".
The fact that there was no -chuq suffix used makes me
think that the old nga'chuq was actually a verb + suffix like
I had suspected. Also, the translation of the sentence on the tape
may, perhaps, be more accurately translated as "go f***k your targ"
rather than the more polite "mate *with* your targ". Perhaps
the difference has to do with sentient vs nonsentient partners?
Amy