tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Jul 08 01:50:45 1994

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

bommey



>From: [email protected] (Jennifer James)
>Date: Fri,  1 Jul 94 12:52:00 -0640


>   * Quoting Klingon Language List to Jennifer James
>   * On Stardate 06-29-94  15:42

>jatlhpu' ~mark:

> > KLL> Heh.  there's also Krankor's anthem,

> >nuq 'oH 'ej nuqDaq pollu'?

> KLL> Hmm.... "HablI.tamu.edu"Daq pollu''a'?  jIHon.  polbejtaH HoD Qanqor,
> KLL> 'ej lab neHchugh ghaH, lab.  chaq 'oH vIghaj je.... vogh (voghDaq?)

>wej "HablI.tamu.edu"vaD naw' vIghaj.  cha' jarDaq chaq ghojwI

OK, I'm dropping back into English to catch you on two points here.  First,
as we already mentioned, we don't know if you can use verbs as nouns (see
Okrand, p.176).  So "naw' vIghaj" is iffy construction.  It's also
needlessly noun-dependiant; you could more clearly and specifically say
"wej HablI' vInaw'laH", without relying on the multitudinous meanings of
the English "have" (note that Klingon "ghaj" means "to possess" mostly).

Second, a point we hashed out on this list, but before you arrived.  The
"-Daq" suffix is a *spatial* "in".  It means "in/at/around/to" in the sense
of *space*, not *time*.  The use of "in" for both in English is by no means
universal to other languages.  How do we know it's like this in Klingon?
>From an Okrandian sentence: "A thousand throats may be slit in one night by
a running man" he translates as "qaStaHvIS wa' ram loS SaD Hugh SIjlaH
qetbogh loD".  Note how he deliberately said "while one night occurs"
rather than "in one night".  So the "qaStaHvIS" construction is attested
and generally preferred here.  I saw in a previous message you have a
sentence fragment "chaq wa' jar poHDaq" or something, a direct
klingoniszation of "maybe in a month's time".  Very Anglicized.  Consider,
"chaq qaSpu'DI' wa' jar": "maybe when a month is finished occurring"
(compare "'uQ wISoppu'DI'..." ijn _Power Klingon_ for "when we have
finished eating supper")

>mojqa'DI' loDnalwIj 'oHvaD naw' vIghaj.  jIHvaD bomvam Daghajchugh

"loDnalwI'"; I wouldn't want to think you were on such poor terms with your
husband.

>Qapla'
>Jennifer James

~mark



Back to archive top level