tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Dec 03 09:40:48 1996

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: RE: KLBC: lut

On Thu, 28 Nov 1996 21:40:54 -0800 David Trimboli 
<[email protected]> wrote:
...
> > >> lughbe'bogh vay' vIchoHqangbej.
> > >
> > >{-choH} is intransitive.  Make this {lughbe'bogh vay' vIchoHqangmoHbej}.
> > 
> > It is?  I didn't remember that.
> 
> There are a couple examples, I think.  The one I remember is from Star Trek V: 
> {HIvHe yIchoHmoH!} "Alter the attack course!"  

I heard that whole line as the single word {yIghoSchoH!} Were we 
watching the same movie? I transcribed this from my own 
videotape and I'm pretty sure this is correct. No {HIv} as noun. 
No {choH} as verb.

> Of course, this sentence gets 
> into my belief that Okrand was using {HIv} as a noun (it's used again this way 
> in what I believe is {chorghSaD qelI'qam HIv chuq'e' vInoH} "Estimating attack 
> range in 8,000 kellicams").  

I heard that as:

maHIvmeH chorghSaD qelIqam 'oH chuq vInoH.

Where did you get your transcriptions? Is that really what you 
heard, or is that just what you translated for yourself? It is 
important. If you really think you are right, I'll go back and 
find the spot on the tape and transcribe it all over again so I 
can update the online word list, but I won't go to that effort 
based on this one message.

Transcribing the movies is non-trivial. I can understand how we 
could come up with different transcriptions, but these two are 
so radically different, it makes me wonder.

> I *think* the word is used somewhere else 
> (probably a SkyBox card), but I'm not certain.

Not that I recall. I'm currently sweeping through the HolQeD's 
to look for that kind of useage among verbs, but the task is 
incomplete.
 
> > >"Kahless the Unforgettable" would be {qeylIS lIjHa'lu'bogh}.  {lIj} is not 
> a 
> > >stative verb, so you can't use it as an adjective.

While it was misspelled in HolQeD v4n3p4, S8, the term is 
clearly:

qeylIS'e' lIjlaHbe'bogh vay'

I suspect that there are few if any variations on this phrase.

> > I wonder if -be' wouldn't make more sense than -Ha' here though.  He's
> > Kahless who is not/cannot be forgotten.  Looks like simple negation.
> 
> Probably.  {qeylIS lIjbe'lu'bogh}.

Ahem! We have canon, sirs!
...
> > There was a huge debate on this a long time ago, I think.  Not so much on
> > making ghojmoH a separate verb; it's the dreaded double-object problem.  I
> > think I came down on the side of supporting "puqpu'vaD yInQeD vIghojmoH"
> > for "I teach the children Biology."  Check the archives for my arguments,
> > because I would have to refresh my memory. :)

Well, there is now canon to say this is a correct 
interpretation. It looked bad initially because it violated our 
understanding that the direct object of an intransitive verb 
with {moH} was the direct object of causation, and you don't 
cause biology to learn, but indeed, when adding {-moH} to a 
transitive verb, the direct object of the root verb does become 
the direct object of the verb with {-moH}.

> This would match the SkyBox usage of {pong}, and I probably wouldn't worry 
> about it too much if I saw someone use it.  Still, I'd like a clearer 
> understanding of when that sort of thing is allowed.  Until then, I'll 
> continue to suggest recasting.
> 
> -- 
> SuStel
> Beginners' Grammarian
> Stardate 96911.9

charghwI'

Back to archive top level