tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed May 01 16:08:50 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: New words in HolQeD 5.1
- From: [email protected] (Alan Anderson)
- Subject: Re: New words in HolQeD 5.1
- Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 18:11:37 -0500
r'Hul writes:
>>>The thing is, we don't have a cannon example of a series of nouns (NOT
>>>compound
>>>nouns) meaning anything but what the individual words mean.
>>
>>Hah! Sure we do -- I'm kind of sensitive to these examples.
>>We have {Hergh QaywI'} "pneumatic hypo" -- the words are not equivalent
>>at all.
>
>Well yes and no. That translates as 'medicine transferor' and that's what it
>is. But I understand your point.
"Yes and no"?! *Your* point was that there weren't any examples where
the separate Klingon words didn't mean the same thing as the separate
English words. I gave a perfectly valid example of exactly that.
*Of course* the concepts "pneumatic hypo" and "medicine transferrer" match,
as do "reactor" and "radiation changer" -- that's why they were translated
the way they were. How would you say "carnivore" in Klingon? Probably
{Ha'DIbaH SopwI'}, no? "Meat eater" isn't the same *word* as "carnivore",
but it's the same idea.
>But lets look at the patterns. Those examples are both <wI'> nouns.
I'd like to see where you're taking this...I've probably been there.
What do you find remarkable about the patterns?
>And those funky <wI'> nouns always seem to be morphing into something
>else. {{;-)
A note of caution: anything that a {-wI'} noun does, a {-ghach} noun is
likely to do as well.
-- ghunchu'wI' batlh Suvchugh vaj batlh SovchoH vaj