tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Dec 07 07:02:32 1995

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: Ret: Repost of: tonSaw' HoS

>Date: Wed, 6 Dec 1995 13:30:29 -0800
>From: Chester Braun <[email protected]>

>DaQtIq wrote:

>Kung Fu.  Coming up with new weapon sets is rather easy and we now have three
>completed and a fourth on the way.
>  <SIS'Iw> teaches betleH basics.
>  <Sochmach'etlh> emphasizes low stances, jumps, and stamina against several
>	     (imaginary) enemies.
>  <mochpach HeH'je> expands on kicks and empty hand moves with added ground
>	       techniques.
>  <Hay' loS Daq> is an advanced set that pits betleH against betleH.  This is
>	    a two person weapon sparring set.

><mochpach HeH' je> is not yet complete.  The other three were performed at
>Kling Kon this year.  Hope to have instructional video tapes ready in Feb next
>year in the format of the tapes produced by Wing Lam Enterprises 
>(http://www.wle.com).  Sorry for the advertisement.

I'm not sure what these names mean.  Are they supposed to have any meaning,
or just be names?  "SIS'Iw" is "blood rains"... ok, that's sort of cool.

"?Sochmach'etlh"... "Seven.  Swords are little."  Note that this does NOT
mean "seven small swords" (which would be "Soch 'etlh mach") nor "Seven
swords are small" (which would be "mach Soch 'elth").  You have a number in
front of a verb.  I guess the number could be functioning as a noun, in
which case it would be the object of the verb, but "mach" is intransitive;
what does "swords are little seven [of them]" mean? (note that "seven" is
the OBJECT of "be little" somehow).  Is this supposed to mean something
different?  Any reason for avoiding spaces?

"mochpach *HeH'je".... I can't figure out how to pronounce "*HeH'je";
there's no way in Klingon that ' can wind up between H and j, and I can't
work out how it's to be pronounced anyway.  I'll take it to be "HeH je".
That makes "mochpach HeH je" mean "the superior's claw and the edge."
OK...  Note that "moch" is a noun, meaning "a superior", i.e. one who is
above someone on a chain of command.

"Hay' loS Daq"... "four places duel" (a sentence: there are four places,
and they're duelling).  Is this what you meant?  If so, cool.


>> > HoSqu' ghajbej tonSaw'
>> > pevIl yavDaq rar qamDu' 'ej
>> > vaj HoS tagh 'uSDu' 'ej
>> > HIv burgh yoS 'ej
>> > jaghpu' Qaw' pachDu'
>> 
>> > Hopefully it comes back around in English something like this:

>> > Klingon fighting must have strength.
>> 
>> <ghajbej> means certainly has, not must have. Use the <-nIS> suffix.

>I gave <-nIS> some consideration but didn't get the idea that it was
>an acceptable choice for 'must'.  I can see why <-bej> wouldn't work.

I'm also lost at the beginning of the sentence, though.  "HoS" is both a
noun and a verb.  You seem to be using it as a noun: tonSaw' has power.  In
which case, though, it can't take the verb-suffix -qu'.  You can say
"HoS'a'" for "great power".  But a neater expression would probably avoid
the "ghaj" altogether (does tonSaw' truly "possess" power?).  How about
using the verb "HoS" and saying "HoS[qu'][nIS/bej] tonSaw'"? (using
suffixes as you like).

>> > waist attacks, and
>> 
>> <burgh yoS> for waist? Since we don't have a specific word for Tan Tien, i'd
>> recommend simply <burgh> or <botlh>.

>I struggled over this.  There really isn't even an English word for Tan Tien.
>Most Chinese translations come across as 'waist' or 'hips', neither of which
>is correct.  'Stomach', <burgh>, alone seemed ever farther off the mark.  I
>missed the possibility of using <botlh> but I might modify it to <porgh botlh>
>so that MA neophites are not confused?

"porgh botlh" or "ro botlh" work for me.  Maybe "porgh botlh" is better.

>> > claws destroy enemy.
>> 
>> In the Klingon you have enemies not enemy. 

>Isn't <jaghpu'> plural for an enemy that is capable of using language.  Granted
>I'm giving the enemies that benefit of doubt but I'm also assuming that
>Klingon martial arts, <tonSaw'>, is predominately used for fighting other
>intelligent and capable beings.

Yes, jaghpu' is plural.  Moreover, since you pluralized pachDu' and didn't
put "lu-" on the verb, the enemies must also be plural, so even if you had
left off the "-pu'" on "jagh" it would STILL be enemies.  Looks like you
have your correcter beat here. :)

~mark

Back to archive top level