tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Dec 07 07:12:52 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: {-bogh} vs {-meH}
R.B Franklin wrote:
> There are no specific rules for creating names and your name does not
> really need to be grammatical, in fact your name does not have to mean
> anything at all. However, it's been my observation that all canon
> Klingon names are only one or two syllables long, so {HomghormeHtaj}
> looks rather wordy to me. But if the name was shorter, say {Homghor} or
> {ghortaj}, I think either would make fine Klingon names. (Personally,
> I like the sound of {ghortaj}.) There's one member of the list whose name
> is simply {ghor} (I think it's the translation of his Finnish name).
I pretty much understand what your saying but only confused on one point.
I assummed that creating new words was forbidden. It seems a fine line
between creating a proper name for an individual thing and a word for an entire
group of things. Creating a word, such as {ghortaj}, for battle ax seems on
the same order as {betleH} for a specific kind of {'etlh}. I get the impression
that many would love to create a word for a specific thing but I can see how
it would get totally out of hand.
I agree completely that more than two syllables for a name becomes cumbersome.
Personally, I also like the sound of {ghortaj}. I'd be concerned that it would
be considered a new word and not accepted. What are the constraints were this
is concerned?
Qapla'
QetaH
(Chet Braun)