tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Nov 13 21:38:06 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Using -Daq (was RE: KLBC: Translation)
- From: Steven Boozer <[email protected]>
- Subject: Using -Daq (was RE: KLBC: Translation)
- Date: Wed, 13 Nov 96 23:37:07 CST
- In-Reply-To: Your message of Wed, 13 Nov 1996 13:59:47 -0800
>jatlh HurghwI':
>> Correct as usual . . . I realized this right after I sent the message, and
>> had already changed my sig. However, don't words for location like {pa'},
>> {naDev}, {vogh}, and {Daq} have an assumed {-Daq} suffix? If not, could I
>> say {DaqDaq}?
>
>Only the three words {pa'} (only in the sense of "thereabouts"), {naDev}, and
>{Dat} have the location built-in and therefore cannot use {-Daq}. So, yes,
>{DaqDaq} is a legitimate word.
>
>SuStel
"Cannot" is too strong. "Need not" would be more apt.
In a bar, the visiting Terran hears a commotion and asks his Klingon escort:
pa'Daq qaStaH nuq
What's happening over there? (CK)
And, in a related usage, you can use -vo' with naDev:
naDevvo' yIghoS
Go away! (TKD)
naDevvo' jIleghlaHchu'be'
I can't see well from here. (CK)
naDevvo' vaS'a'Daq majaHlaH'a'
Can we get to the Great Hall from here? (PK)
If naDevvo' is permitted, then naDevDaq is, at least, a possibility
(though it is surely redundant). The only examples of naDev used in an
accusative sense I can find from Okrand are:
naDev ghoS
Come here! (PK)
naDev Dochvetlh qem
Bring that here! (PK)
naDev Dochvetlh qemqu'
I really mean it this time: bring that here! (PK)
Note that these are all Clipped Klingon as they are pet commands. Also,
naDev ghoS ("Come here") has been used in TNG "Redemption I" but, as we
know all too well, Paramount's use of Hol proves nothing - even when they
manage to get it right.
Voragh
__________________________________________________________________________
Steven L. Boozer | Saying, would know.
University of Chicago Library | Do not know, so cannot say.
[email protected] | -- Zathras