tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Jul 16 23:21:53 1994
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC
- From: d'Armond Speers <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: KLBC
- Date: Sun, 17 Jul 1994 11:18:17 -0400 (EDT)
> From: IN%"[email protected]" "Klingon Language List" 15-JUL-1994 20:20:32.80
> Subj: RE: KLBC
>
> According to Lisa Herd:
> >
> > > Because the weapons keep firing, the Heavens are alight.
> > >
> > > HovDaq wovtaH baHtaH nuHmeymo'
> > >
> > The only thing I would change is the word HovDaq. I would use chal for
> > "heavens". And now that I think of it I would say:
> >
> > wovtaH chal baHtaH nuHmeymo'
>
> I really, REALLY REALLY REALLY want to comment on this, but
> unlike my earlier inappropriate post, I will control myself.
> Holtej, go for it.
>
> charghwI'
qablIjDaq tujqu' qul, qar'a', charghwI'?
Now to the original sentence. {HovDaq wovtaH baHtaH nuHmeymo'}
translates as "It is (being) bright at the star | It firing due to the
weapons" (or something close to that). {wovtaH} needs a subject, so
you have an undefined "it." Again, {baHtaH} needs a subject, and
{nuHmeymo'} isn't it, because of the {-mo'} (see the example sentence
in TKD 3.3.5 for evidence of this).
I see why you put {baHtaH nuHmeymo'} together, because in translation
it looks like it'd be "due to the weapons firing." But Klingon
grammar doesn't work that way. {nuHmeymo'} can't be the subject, and
further, the English wants to be a possessive with a gerund, "due to
the firing of the weapons." So you see, this is a bigger mess than
you may have thought.
I agree with DBarron's {chal} over {Hov}, so with that, let's see what
we can do.
baHtaHmo' nuHmey wov chal
Note the verbal {-mo'} instead of the nominal {-mo'}, and that we have
two clauses, each with a subject specified, not implied. What do
you think? Fit your meter?
--Holtej