tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Nov 18 14:13:50 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: RE: KLBC: nuq
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: RE: KLBC: nuq
- Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1996 16:25:59 -0500 ()
- Priority: NORMAL
On Sun, 17 Nov 1996 18:34:16 -0800 Alan Anderson
<[email protected]> wrote:
> SuStel writes:
> >>Oh dear. You've just hit one of those snags in the Klingon language. There
> >>is no easy way to say "Which <noun>."
>
> Adrian (HurghwI') writes:
> >I would have suggested the following, although I like your idea as well:
> >Ha'DIbaH 'oHbogh nuq wIje'laH.
> >"What can we buy which is meat?"
If this were acceptable (and I don't think it is), it has a
small error. {Ha'DIbaH 'oHbogh nuq'e' wIje'laH.} You need the
{-'e'} on the subject of any "to be" verb. Meanwhile, this
creates a problem if you ever want the head noun of the *"to
be"bogh* to be the object of the *"to be"bogh*.
In general, I avoid {-bogh}ing "to be" verbs whenever possible.
I just take it as an alarm that if I'm depending on the verb "to
be" in this way, then I'm wearing a little too much of an
English mindset.
I still prefer to convert English questions with an
adjectival question word "Which" into commands in Klingon:
Ha'DIbaH wIje'bogh yIwIv.
Choose the meat which we will buy.
This really is the same thing as asking, "Which meat should we
buy?" If you are asking them to choose, then you are
politely telling them to choose, and Klingons don't care about
being polite. Meanwhile, we can do this without having to make
up any new grammar or vocabulary.
> [SFX: a brain being stretched into a new position]
>
> That's a remarkable way to try to translate "which". I'll have to
> let it percolate for a while, but at first glance I kind of like it.
vIpar jIH!
> {DujlIj Qaw'ta' HoD ghaHbogh 'Iv?} "Which captain destroyed your ship?"
DujlIj Qaw'ta' HoD yI'ang!
or, according to the MSN definition:
DujlIj Qaw'ta' HoD yImagh!
> {nuH 'oHbogh nuq Dalo' DaneH?} "Which weapon do you want to
use?"
nuH yIwIv!
Forget weapons. Anyone saying {nuH 'oHbogh nuq Dalo' DaneH}
would be strangled on the spot. They would be throttled to
death. Nothing less personal would satisfy the one asked this
convoluted, suspicious, perhaps devious question.
> The first isn't quite as concise as {DujlIj Qaw'ta'bogh HoD'e' yIngu'},
> and the second isn't anywhere near as simple as {nuH yIwIv}, of course.
toH bIlIjpu'be'! maj! And {ngu'} is good. I always forget that
word...
> Using a "to be" construction like this seems pretty contrived, but it
> also seems to convey exactly the meaning intended.
In a convoluted, polite, wittering, human kind of way, perhaps.
> -- ghunchu'wI'
charghwI'