tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Oct 13 10:30:05 1994
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: ANOTHER TRY
>From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
>Date: Thu, 13 Oct 94 10:51:43 EDT
>According to Mark E. Shoulson:
>I could go either way. This sounds fine to me. HoDoywI'? nuq
>DaSov?
*sigh* Haven't seen hide nor hair of the beloved captain in ages, aside
from occasional glimpses to convince me he hasn't dropped off the face of
the earth.
>> 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
I suppose it could be made to make sense, since "-moH" is sufficiently
broad in meaning. but chenmoH has almost become lexicalized by itself to
mean what an *agent* does to make something take form, not what its
components do.
>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'?
HIja', bIlugh.
>> ~mark
>charghwI'
~mark