tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Mar 11 05:54:06 1994

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: KLBC: Passing Time

>From: Will Martin <[email protected]>
>Date: Fri, 11 Mar 94 17:26:56 EST
>Subject: Re: KLBC:  Passing Time
>Paul responds to trI'qal responding to Paul:
>> As for the derivation of De'wI'...  There IS a mu' tlhIngan "De'"...  "De'"
>> is a noun, and means data, or information.  De'wI' is not a standard
>> construction, but the connection is pretty obvious...
>> ...Paul
>     Sorry to tread into the grammarian's more appropriate turf, but I just
>find {mu' tlhIngan} jarring and feel a need to nip this one in the bud.
>{tlhIngan} is a noun. It is not an adjectival verb. We may not all agree on
>which verbs can be used adjectivally, but we ALL agree that nouns in general
>and this noun in particular is NEVER an adjectival verb. That means you have
>a noun-noun construction meaning, "the word's Klingon" or "the Klingon of the
>word", both of which are waaay off base.
>     It's great to see you write so much so often and so often well. Just
>don't carry our English tendency to use "Klingon" as an adjective over to
>using "tlhIngan" adjectivally. Okay?

Gee, it made sense when I wrote it...  What was I thinking...

I know what I was thinking...  "tlhIngan Hol".  I realize this is "the
language of the Klingon", and that works okay.  Somehow I ended up throwing
mu' in front of tlhIngan to get what I thought was going to end up with
"the word of the Klingon"...  How WOULD you say "Klingon word"?  Can
you daisy-chain noun-noun constructions?  For instance "tlhIngan Hol mu'"
(the word of the language of the Klingons?)  Acutally, I guess maybe
"tlhIngan mu'" is good enough?  I just got confused.  Oh well.  It


Qapla' vIchavbe'pu'...  :(

Back to archive top level