tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Nov 20 22:09:53 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: DujHom chu' vIje'nIS
- From: [email protected]
- Subject: Re: DujHom chu' vIje'nIS
- Date: Tue, 21 Nov 1995 01:09:22 -0500
In a message dated 95-11-15 00:36:28 EST, you write:
>I believe I have found such a word: {tlhuch}! I base this opinion on
>several things. First, the word appears in the English-Klingon side of
>the dictionary adjacent to the noun {taQbang} "exhaust"; I believe that
>if Okrand had intended it to mean "use up" he would have recognized the
>ambiguity and used the words "use up" in its gloss. Second, there does
>not seem to be another word for "emit", but there IS a verb {loj} which
>means "be all gone", and {lojmoH} is perfect for "use up". Third, the
>word is similar to {tlhuH} "breathe" and {tlhIch} "smoke". It's a weak
>argument, but there's a similar similarity :-) involving {ja'}, {jach},
>{jatlh}, and even {jat}.
>
>
Okrand so often does not specify the intended usage of an entry in TKD,
giving only the part of speech, that many entries are ambiguous.
You have written:
First, the word appears in the English-Klingon side of
the dictionary adjacent to the noun {taQbang} "exhaust"
I cannot EVER accept this kind of argument while discussing tlhIngan Hol
based on our current research resources. Only when the adjacent words are
pronounced the same in tlhIngan Hol and have like meaning in English will I
accept that there is a connection. Thus, {Qagh} means either "error" or
"err" is okay. But, just the fact that you found {tlhuch} next to {taQbang}
does not connect them. To prove that adjacency is not an adequate argument,
look up {qoj} and {qoj}. Besides, on the English side of TKD please look at
"crowd" and "crowd." Not only are the two parts of speech pronounced
differently in tlhIngan Hol, even a beginner such as I can tell the
difference in the meanings of the two.
Important: I do not believe that MO has cleared up the ambiguities. I have
not seen intention on his part to clear up the ambiguities in TKD.
Fortunately, MO has contributed to HolQeD and has (sometimes) answered the
discussions the experts have published in HolQeD. A few of the ambiguities
of TKD are being clarified later; but, I will not (without further evidence
and convincing arguments from other sources) accept the above argument that
MO would have specified the meaning you arbitrarily wish to be the correct
one. On the same basis, I felt that {tlhuch} means "expend, deplete,
exhaust" but will not claim that that is the only possibility. I really hope
MO uses {tlhuch} in some canon text for us.
{loj} is given as a verb (stative verb at that). I agree completely with
{lojmoH} for "use up, exhaust, deplete."
You have written:
Third, the>word is similar to {tlhuH} "breathe" and {tlhIch} "smoke". It's a
weak
>argument, but there's a similar similarity :-) involving {ja'},
{jach},>{jatlh}, and even {jat}.
I don't like this at all! :) Boy, is it ever a weak argument! Just because
words sound a little bit alike does not adequately connect them. These are
all distinct words. Or else, "do," "dew," and "due" are all about alike in
English?????
Now: I am one of the students of Klingon who would love to use {tlhIch} as a
verb. What if I could post signs at my office saying {tlhIchQo'} so I would
not have to {tlhuH} all those cigarrete {pugh}? Then I would not {noch (as a
Verb, which it is not)} so bad.
Finally, in response to the above-mentioned specificity of the intentions of
Mark Okrand throughout TKD, mu'ghomvamDaq Qaghmey tu'lu' (see p48
{yIHaghqu'} = "study him well." Either this is a mistake, {Hagh} should have
been {HaD}, or we can claim from MO's use of {Hagh} that it is another word
for "study" and he has neglected to enter it in the dictionary listings.
Personally, I think it is a mistake. That sets a precedence for believing
there are mistakes in TKD. See p175: {bIganmo'} = "because you are old"
But, the spelling {gan} does not exist in tlhIngan Hol. Another typo in
TKD? You bet.
See p179: {gar} should have been {qar}.
peHruS