tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Dec 18 20:00:29 1994

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

Re: qamuSHa'ta'



According to Terry Donnelly:
> 
> The recent discussion of how to say 'love' reminded me of a poem I 
> wrote a while ago. Please critique this:
> 
> 
>      qamuSHa'ta'
> 
> qamuSHa'ta'; chaq qa'wIjDaq
> wej Heghchu' bangwIj'e'.

Hmm. Remember that {bang} refers to a person in Klingon, not an
abstract emotion. "My lover is not yet perfectly dead"? (No,
she is still thrashing around on the floor...) [Sorry. Couldn't
help myself.]

Anyway, my whole problem with most of this is that you seem to
consitently use {bang} to mean "love" in the abstract sense.
You may be right, but my reading of the word {bang} has always
pointed specifically to another person.

Speaking of which, lights are going out. I think I better go to
bed...

> 'ach DaH bangvam yISaHtaHQo' -
> qaQoSmoH not vIneH.
> 
> qamuSHa'ta'. mu' vItu'be'.
> DaH roj, DaH QeH vIghaj.
> jIyuDHa'bej; jIvIDHa'chu'.
> chaq latlh bang rap Dalaj.

This line seems a little confusing. "Perhaps you accept
another's same lover."? 

>          ghItlh //A. Pushkin//
> 
> (I realize that {-e'} and {-eH} don't really rhyme, but what the hey.)

We don't know that Klingons care if their poems rhyme.

> -ter'eS

charghwI'
-- 

 \___
 o_/ \
 <\__,\
  ">   | Get a grip.
   `   |


Back to archive top level