tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Feb 02 21:00:29 1994
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
'ovpu'ghach
- From: [email protected] (Mark E. Shoulson)
- Subject: 'ovpu'ghach
- Date: Thu, 3 Feb 1994 09:59:01 -0500
- In-Reply-To: Will Martin's message of Tue, 1 Feb 94 10:32:30 EST <[email protected]>
>From: Will Martin <[email protected]>
>Date: Tue, 1 Feb 94 10:32:30 EST
>On Jan 31, 6:50pm, Richard Kennaway wrote [and charghwI' replies]:
>> Subject: 'ovpu'ghach
>> QuchDajDaq ghor'eghqu' 'etlh 'ej rIQta'be'
>This does make sense, but it could have been a little less ambiguous if
>you added a pronoun:
> QuchDajDaq ghorqu''egh 'etlh 'ej rIQbe' ghaH
I'm still not completely sure that "-'egh" really works here, but I can
sort of see it.
>> SuvwI' cha'DIch qIp SuvwI' wa'DIch
>> SuvwI' cha'DIch 'elta' 'etlh 'ach rIQta'be'chu'qu'
>I think you got a little carried away with suffixes on the last word
>there. {-chu'} is already perfect. "Very perfect" is laying it on a little
>thick. If {-chu'} is to have meaning, it can't be intensified in so casual a
>setting. Something would have to be waaaaaay impressive to be {-chu'qu'}.
>Essentially, you are saying that the extreme of {-chu'} fails to carry the
>meaning. I don't think we need that here.
You're likely right in this case, but I disagree that "-chu'qu'" would be
such an incredibly rare bird. Not that I disagree with your reasons, but
because I think you're missing an important usage. Remember, only one of
the meanings of "-qu'" is an intensifier. It is also an emphasizer. That
is, "baHchu'qu'" most often would be used to mean "he fires extremely
perfectly", but rather "he fires PERFECTLY", *emphasizing* (not necessarily
intensifying) the "-chu'". Perhaps it would be a response to someone else
criticizing the performance. ("baHHa'." "ghobe', baHchu'qu'. QeqHa'pu'"
"He fires badly." "No, he fires *perfectly* (not badly). He mis-aimed"
[Qeq=aim from PK]). Check out Section 4.3, page 49.
>This is similar to my problem with overuse of {quv}, {batlh} and {-nES}.
>These words are supposed to MEAN something. If you honorably walk around
>honorably apologising every honorable time any honorable someone honorably
>stubs their honorable toe, then the word becomes meaningless.
Yes. I recently saw someone (Nick?) refer to the dictionary as "mu'ghom
quv". Come on guys. This stuff starts to sound like a really bad
stereotype of Japanese, like from an ill-researched movie. Listen to the
tapes. Aside from the parts where he teaches about the use of "-neS" and a
few sentences with "batlh" (where they make sense), there's none of that.
The dialogues with the Terran at the end of PK *never* have anyone calling
him "tera'ngan quv" or anything like that. Even "Please accept these
stuffed tobage legs" doesn't have a "-neS" on it. Unless you're actually
saying something meaningful by using these methods, you're speaking white
noise. And Klingon time is valuable; it mustn't be wasted listening to
empty breath. :-)
~mark