tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Jan 23 14:03:37 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: chu' mu'mey nuqDaq vItu'laH'a'
According to ghunchu'wI':
>
...
> >De'vam cho'anglaH'a' vay'?
>
> (I accept this use of the {cho-} prefix, but I don't much care for it.
> I highly prefer {jIHvaD De'vam 'anglaH'a' vay'?}.)
I can completely empathize. I think your preference is more
grammatically correct, but the original follows common practice
and there is canon to support it. I think both forms are
acceptable and have come to feel that {jIHvaD De'vam 'anglaH'a'
vay'?} is the more formal style, while {De'vam cho'anglaH'a'
vay'?} is the more informal style.
I'm not wild about the way that it mirrors the English
equivalent. It feels a little sloppy, but it is no weirder than
{qajatlh}, which for years has been an alternative to {nuqneH}
for opening a conversation, and similar use of the verb prefix
to indicate INDIRECT object is quite commonplace. Arguing
against it won't get a lot of mileage here.
I know. I argued against it for a couple months before I was
finally overrun and accepted it as proper informal Klingon.
> -- ghunchu'wI' batlh Suvchugh vaj batlh SovchoH vaj
The rest is yet another fine example of a good BG doing a good
job.
charghwI'
--
\___
o_/ \
<\__,\
"> | Get a grip.
` |