tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Oct 13 07:52:03 1994
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: ANOTHER TRY
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: ANOTHER TRY
- Date: Thu, 13 Oct 94 10:51:43 EDT
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>; from "Mark E. Shoulson" at Oct 12, 94 4:02 pm
According to Mark E. Shoulson:
>
>
> >From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
> >Date: Tue, 11 Oct 94 17:36:39 EDT
>
> >DaH tlhIngan Hol lo'bogh jabbI'IDwIj'e' cha'DIch vIta'.
...
> >How about a word from the REAL grammarians?
>
> Eek, that's me! Hrm. I doubt there's any canon evidence, and none springs
> to mind. Off the top of my head, speaking as myself and not as Okrand or
> anything, I'd be inclined to treat cha'DIch just like an adjectival verb
> and stick the -'e' onto it.
I could go either way. This sounds fine to me. HoDoywI'? nuq
DaSov?
> >I also thought of:
>
> >tlhIngan Hol jabbI'IDwIj cha'DIch chen wanI'vam.
>
> >"This event forms my second transmission of the language of a
> >Klingon."
>
> >Perhaps that is less grammatically strange?
>
> Grammatically, maybe, but not semantically (or maybe neither, depending on
> how you define grammar). "chen" means "take form"; it doesn't mean
> "comprise". I can't really see "chen" being used transitively too much.
> "chenmoH" might work here, but the meaning isn't quite right. Maybe
> "tlhIngan Hol jabbI'IDwIj cha'DIch vIngeHmeH, jabbI'IDvam vIngeH." It
> sounds a little redundant in English, but not really in Klingon.
I'm uncertain that "chenmoH" is all that bad. The event causes
the second transmission to take form. I agree that I missed
with "chen" alone, however. Still, if you want to say "send"
and it is a transmission, wouldn't {lab} be a better choice?
SuvwI'pu' lungeHlu' 'ach jabbI'IDmey lulablu', qar'a'?
> ~mark
charghwI'