tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Sep 13 14:27:42 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: nIDwIj wa'DIch
- From: [email protected]
- Subject: Re: nIDwIj wa'DIch
- Date: Fri, 13 Sep 1996 17:27:00 -0400
96-09-13 08:12:55 EDT, jatlh Qob:
> We also have a canon use of the verb {pong} on S27 {Qo'noS}. This card
> contains the sentence {roD 'oHvaD juHqo' ponglu' neH}. While this
sentence
> is
> combined with another in the English translation ("What is a single
sentence
> in ENglish is often two in Klingon") the translation is fairly evident:
> "(Qo'noS) is usually refered to as simply "The Homeworld". To me, {juHqo'
> ponglu'} quite clearly says "someone calls it 'the Homeworld'". (I do
admit
> to uncertainty about what {'oHvaD} is doing in there; it certainly seem
> redundant, and we've discussed the meaning of {roD} before.)
I still feel shaky with this, but here's my take:
The {'oHvaD} is there to prevent having to write {Qo'noSvaD}. You even put
{Qo'noS} in parenthesis. Think of the translation this way:
{Qo'noSvaD juHqo' ponglu' neH}
"One simply names 'Homeworld.' This naming is done for Qo'noS."
Using this interpretation, I could say,
{jIHvaD "David" pong vavwI' SoSwI' je}
"My father and mother named David. This naming was applied to me."
It sounds kind of weird this way, but it really seems to mean "My parents
named me David."
The problem with the example is that there could be other ways to interpret
it. Perhaps the apposition is really there, as you suggest. Then, I would
have to say,
{jIHvaD "David" (jIH) mupong vavwI' SoSwI' je}
which might best be translated, "My father and mother named me, David (and
applied it to me)."
This is why the {-vaD} part gets redundant, and I'm not sure if yours is the
correct interpretation (unless you can think of some cases where someone
would name me and then apply that name to someone else . . .). I think we
need more examples (what else is new?).
Oh, by the way, I missed the final determination of what {roD} is. Could you
summarize?
SuStel
Stardate 96703.3