tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Nov 14 11:23:41 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: DujHom chu' vIje'nIS
>Date: Mon, 13 Nov 1995 23:15:43 -0800
>From: [email protected]
>Alan Anderson wrote 95-11-04 23:12:22 EST
>{snip}
>vagh ben pa' loQ QapHa' luch 'ej muDDaq pey tlhuch luchvam. (*1)
>Since {ben} already means "years ago," I would not use {pa'} here as "before,
>ago."
I don't know that he is. I certainly would use "pa'" only to mean "there"
in terms of space. It looks like the sentence is saying "five years ago,
the equipment slightly failed there." "pa'" is being used in its normal
way.
>My real reason for replying to this post, though, is the use of {tlhuch}.
> Although TKD does not tell us the usage of Verbs, I feel that {tlhuch} means
>to "exhaust [resources]."
>To me, it does not convey "emit exhaust." I have not found any words in TKD
>to express "emit," "expel," nor "cast."
Hmm. I never considered that. I think we used "tlhuch" once as "exhaust"
in the sense you reject in Hamlet. The trouble is we simply don't have
enough information to go on. Those one-word glosses are just not enough,
and we have to do our best. I don't know if you're wrong or right.
>May I propose a list of words to replace {tlhuch} in the sentence above and
>see what comments they elicit.
>vo' = propel
>ngeH = send
>woD = throw away (perhaps discard)
>tlheDmoH = cause to depart
>Haw'moH = cause to go out/flee
>ghajHa' = dispossess
>Qol = beam away (perhaps this should apply only to transporter beams, though)
>qeDmoH = cause to vacate
Obviously some of these are better than others. Your translation for
"ghajHa'", though, is misleading. The meaning is close to what you're
looking for, but "dispossess" means "to cause someone else to lose
possession of something."
>Another subject from the same post:
>vaj vIngevDI' vItI'chugh Huch vIlajbogh law' law' vItI'be'mo' Huch vIlajbogh
>law' puS.
>I have a feeling that Klingon avoids redundant syllables. For example, they
>probably do not say {qu'qu'} for "very fierce" nor {taHtaH} for "it continues
>to exist." I have even begun to make sure that I put something between {vaj}
>and {vaj} for "....the warrior, ... then....." In the above sentence {law'
>law'} just doesn't feel right to me.
I don't think I agree. There really isn't much evidence that Klingon
avoids repetitive syllables (they're not redundant; each is necessary). In
English, we quite happily attach "-ing" to "sing" and get "singing" and
don't care that the syllable is almost repeated. Particularly something
like law'/puS which obviously derived from the verb "law'"; why should it
not be used in conjunction with it? We also have canon evidence that
"vIlI'lI'" is proper Klingon (p.42); isn't that repetitive?
~mark