tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Feb 28 21:09:10 1994
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
taglines
- From: [email protected] (Mark E. Shoulson)
- Subject: taglines
- Date: Tue, 1 Mar 1994 10:07:31 -0500
- In-Reply-To: Amy West's message of Tue, 01 Mar 94 01:44:06 PST <[email protected]>
>From: [email protected] (Amy West)
>Date: Tue, 01 Mar 94 01:44:06 PST
>~markvo':
>>>qagh: nIQvaD 'oHtaHbe' neH!
>>>*gagh: it isn't just for breakfast any more!
>>nIQvaD neH 'oHtaHbe' sounds better.
>Can you do that? I thought {neH} was the one exception.
{neH} is the exception in that you *can* do that. See section 5.4. "Also
unlike other adverbials, {neH} can follow a noun. In such cases, it means
_only, alone_." This is what you want here: For breakfast alone, it isn't.
Bleah, I'm pretty sure I don't like "'oH" there. "Soplu'" or something
would be better.
>>>qamDu'majDaq Hegh qaq law' qIvDu'majDaq yIn qaq puS
>>>*Dying on our feet is better than living on our knees!
>>Should be QaQ in both places, right?
>Ummmmmm...... No! That's supposed to be "preferable".
>It's a line from STVI when the Klingons are arguing about
>whether or not to go to war (sounds like ka-poosh in the film).
Mea culpa; I forgot about qaq. You're right.
>>g'dayt? wtf?
>Klingonaase. Is there a good tlhIngan alternative?
Ah. Well, depends; I mean the problem is that you're trying to translate
an English idiom and hope it works. The only word we have for something
like that that I know of is "veQ". Even that has its problems; how can
garbage "happen"? For that matter, how can shit? It's an idiom in the
English, and if you're counting on its recognition by English speakers, you
might as well stick with "veQ". If you're trying to make it make sense in
Klingon... you have to start from scratch.
>>>QIpwI'Hom nga'chuq wIrI'neS Hoch!
>>>*All do the honor of hailing TFLT!
>>I believe "nga'chuq" takes its actors both as the subject.... In any
>>case, I still can't make sense of this sentence.
>"nga'chuq" -- uh, should we open that little can of worms over here
>Dave? I said that it's OK to say {yInga''egh} (yes, we've been
>practicing our insults). Dave says that the chuq is not a suffix,
>but part of the root verb. Isn't this word similar to {ja'chuq}?
>Adding to the confusion is {nagh} used on PK for "mate" (assuming
>that's the way it's spelled).
OK, we went through this before you came here. We have the word
"nga'chuq", but that's it. It certainly appears likely that this was
originally "*nga'" plus the suffix "-chuq", *but* we have no evidence that
"*nga'" exists as a separate root in modern Klingon. This could be a
fossilized remnant of a construction, and its components no longer are
usable (like "uncouth" is in modern English, but you can't use "*couth"
anymore). It may have even been an idiom, so backtracking could give you
totally the wrong meaning (who knows, maybe "*nga'" meant "scratch" and it
was a euphemism, referring to scratches given during the sexual act or
whatever). So I, at least, think that "*yInga''egh" is not something that
should be allowed unless Okrand says otherwise. Maybe "nga'" was an old
form of what became "nagh" or "ngagh", whichever is right. That should be
a better word to work from.
>>>wej jIcheghbej.
>>>*I'll be back.
>>"wej"? Not sure how it';s being used here.
>Supposed to be something like "later" as opposed to "right now". I
>said to just leave it as "jIcheghbej" because, in the context in
>which it was said (Terminator), it can only mean "I *will* return".
How 'bout "tugh" then? The sentence as it stands means something like "I
definitely haven't returned yet."
>Amy
~mark