tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Nov 16 12:51:28 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: DujHom chu' vIje'nIS
>Date: Wed, 15 Nov 1995 20:16:18 -0800
>From: "R.B Franklin" <[email protected]>
>On Wed, 15 Nov 1995 [email protected] wrote:
>> "Conversational Klingon"Daq <lupwI'> jatlh tlhIngan DevwI'.
>> lupwI'mey ghomlupwI'mey je lo'laH ghotpu'.
>> DujHom 'oHbe'bej lupwI'wIj.
>CK translates {lupwI'} as a "jitney". In my part of the Empire, we don't
>use the word "jitney" so I had to look it up in a dictionary. My
>dictionary describes it as a bus or car which carries passengers for a
>fare. It also describes the word as a British word for a small, cheap
>automobile and it indicates that the word was originally French slang for an
>automobile. {Duj} is translated as "ship" or "vessel" which in
>English, normally refer to watercraft or aircraft (or spacecraft). Given
>this, I think your criticism is probably valid and {lupwI'} is likely a
>better term to use for "car" or "automobile" or a ground vehicle of
>some sort.
*sniff*. This is probably right. I might not follow it, anyway. :) I
know that Krankor, at least, is quite fond of the extended use of "Duj",
since after all, it's so much more useful in our lives, and we get attached
to our cars much as captains Kirk and Picard get attached to their
ships... Hee. It's possible we might just decide to use it as slang. But
you're probably right. Oh well.
~mark