tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Dec 11 11:46:19 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: Win 95 "Klingon-ized"
>Date: Sun, 10 Dec 1995 09:25:35 -0800
>From: [email protected]
>In a message dated 95-12-08 21:27:38 EST, you write:
>>>{lan} is a verb meaning "place/put."
>>>
>>>veQDaq = garbage place
>>
>>I would prefer
>>veQ pa' = garbages' place
>>
>>
>I would NOT prefer veQ pa'. viz QongDaq = bed, that is canon, from
>Conversational Klingon tape. Further examples outside of proven/canon
>instances include: {'ovDaq} = arena; {tlhongDaq} = store.
I agree that "pa'" is wrong here; it can only mean "room".
>{pa'} means "a place over there" while {Daq} means "a place in general".
> Still, if I were trying to translate "I don't know where you are," I would
>say {SoHtaHbogh pa' vISovbe'}.
I agree with your translation of "pa'", but not with your use. To me,
"pa'" is more than just a noun meaning "a place over there." It's a fixed
locative form, with a "-Daq" invisibly joined to it. That's why it never
takes -Daq. I realize there's no canon that it *always* has the -Daq on
it, but that's how it feels to me. And in any case, you're trying to use
it locatively here. To use your phrasing, I'd say "*DaqDaq SoHtaHbogh
vISovbe'", with the asterisk because I'm trying to make the -Daq-tagged
word the head-noun of the relative clause, which I believe is not legal.
Realize that that's what you're doing here. Why use "pa'" I don't know,
but in any case you're asking about the "place" (or the "there") *IN* which
you are. You're making the head-noun of the relative clause not the
subject of the clause (which is SoH), not the object of the clause (if it
were, it would imply that you WERE a place, not that you were AT it), but
the locative of the clause.
~mark