tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Jan 22 19:02:13 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: DS9 #31
>Date: Sun, 21 Jan 1996 13:39:15 -0800
>From: "Dr. Lawrence M. Schoen" <[email protected]>
Greetings from San Diego!
>> >quv van je tay: (ritual of) honor and tribute.
>> > maSaqqa'lI': We are in the process of arriving again.
>> > petlheDrupchoH: Disembark (you will begin being ready
>> > to depart)
>>
>> I'm having problems accepting the above phrases. Come on, someone. Convince
>> me!
>Damn, I suppose that's probably my job. :)
>> I prefer {quvvantay}. I don't like the feeling I get with {je} in the
>> middle.
>I didn't like this one either. I didn't make it up. The writer of the story
>actually did some of the Klingon himself and this phrase seemed to be pretty
>much carved in stone. I don't think I'd go out on a limb so far as to say I'm
>that happy with your suggestion of {quvantay}, but I would think that a ceremony
>such of this would have undergone some linguistic weathering and assumed a
>simpler form than the one they used.
I don't know that quv van je tay is so horrid. True, it's FAR too long
for the name of a ritual, but in terms of grammaticalness it's okay: (quv
van je) tay: a N-N construction.
>> Disembark = go ashore (Webster's dictionary) = lItHa'
I don't think I like "lItHa'" for "go ashore." It's not the opposite of
riding, it's the opposite or boarding!
>> Of course, {tIj} means "go aboard." I have never seen {tIjHa'}, but why
>> wouldn't it work?
Personally, I think I would accept tIjHa'. It works well for me.
~mark