tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Nov 28 21:35:33 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: KLBC: lut
- From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>
- Subject: RE: KLBC: lut
- Date: Fri, 29 Nov 96 01:27:16 UT
November 27, 1996 4:34 PM, jatlh ~mark:
> >toH! DaH jItIv'eghchoH!
>
> Heh... Careful, this is an English idiom.
Yes, and one which Mark Okrand himself has used on the Microsoft Network.
(I'm not considering it to be "canon," but I was wondering who would ask me
about this . . .)
SuStel --
jabbI'IDlIj vIlaDpu'.
qep'a' wejDIchDaq jatlhtaH tlhIngan Hol HaDwI'pu'. ghoHtah je. tIv'eghtaH
je. vaj SuquvmoH.
naDev bIQumqa' 'e' vItul.
Qapla'!
- Marc
> >> lughbe'bogh vay' vIchoHqangbej.
> >
> >{-choH} is intransitive. Make this {lughbe'bogh vay' vIchoHqangmoHbej}.
>
> It is? I didn't remember that.
There are a couple examples, I think. The one I remember is from Star Trek V:
{HIvHe yIchoHmoH!} "Alter the attack course!" Of course, this sentence gets
into my belief that Okrand was using {HIv} as a noun (it's used again this way
in what I believe is {chorghSaD qelI'qam HIv chuq'e' vInoH} "Estimating attack
range in 8,000 kellicams"). I *think* the word is used somewhere else
(probably a SkyBox card), but I'm not certain.
If someone really wants to use it transitively, I'll admit that there isn't
much evidence on my side. But there's no other information to go on!
> >Dalo'chu'ta'chugh, yIchoHmoHbej!
>
> lo'chu'ta'chugh, qatlh choHnISmoH? lughchugh, qatlh tamlu'nIS?
Hmmm . . . qatlh mu'tlheghvam vIjatlh? jIlughbe'ba'. Dalo'chu'ta'chugh,
Deborah, yIchoHmoHbe'bej!
(arrgh! muHIvtaH veqlargh! QaH!)
> >"Kahless the Unforgettable" would be {qeylIS lIjHa'lu'bogh}. {lIj} is not
a
> >stative verb, so you can't use it as an adjective.
> I wonder if -be' wouldn't make more sense than -Ha' here though. He's
> Kahless who is not/cannot be forgotten. Looks like simple negation.
Probably. {qeylIS lIjbe'lu'bogh}.
> >> "tajmeyraj boSuv 'e' vIghojmoHbe''a'?"
> >
> >Ick. You're assuming {ghojmoH} is a seperate verb from {ghoj}. I read
this
> >as "Did I not cause that you fight your knives to learn?" I've found that
one
> >can always reword {ghojmoH} into something legal:
> >
> >{tajraj bolo'meH 'ej SuSuvmeH SaghojmoHbe''a'?}
>
> There was a huge debate on this a long time ago, I think. Not so much on
> making ghojmoH a separate verb; it's the dreaded double-object problem. I
> think I came down on the side of supporting "puqpu'vaD yInQeD vIghojmoH"
> for "I teach the children Biology." Check the archives for my arguments,
> because I would have to refresh my memory. :)
This would match the SkyBox usage of {pong}, and I probably wouldn't worry
about it too much if I saw someone use it. Still, I'd like a clearer
understanding of when that sort of thing is allowed. Until then, I'll
continue to suggest recasting.
--
SuStel
Beginners' Grammarian
Stardate 96911.9