tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue May 03 05:24:58 1994
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: New canon
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: New canon
- Date: Tue, 3 May 94 17:22:18 EDT
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>; from "Marnen Laibow-Koser" at May 3, 94 4:52 pm
According to Marnen Laibow-Koser:
> Shouldn't that be >reH taHjaj tlhIngan Hol<? As far as I can tell, there is no
> persuasive evidence for a consistent pattern of >-jaj< inversion: alongside
> >'IwlIj jachjaj< in inverted order, we have >QuvlIjDaq yIHmey tu'be'lu'jaj< in
> regular order, and so on. What's the consensus on >-jaj< inversion?
>
> Qapla' QIchqemwI'vo'.
> --
> _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ | Marnen E.
Krankor wrote an excellent article on this in the
penultimate HolQeD (I think vol2, no.4, though I don't have it
with me). It seems that the apparent pattern for toasts from
ancient sources is OSV instead of the usual OVS. Since these
ancient toasts all tend to use {-jaj}, one might tend to invert
everything you write with {-jaj}, but methinks this be
paramount to fpeaking Elizabethan Englifh in thefe moderne
timef.
Krankor's conclusion was that if you are repeating an
ancient toast (or trying to make a new one sound ancient -- my
suggestion, not his), then OSV may be the way to go. Otherwise,
just because you use {-jaj} you should not abandon mormal
modern Klingon word order.
I hope I represent my captain's suggestions acceptably.
charghwI'