tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Aug 05 17:34:18 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC story: bemorngan tIqIH
>Date: Tue, 5 Aug 1997 13:03:43 -0700 (PDT)
>From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>
This is SUCH a cool story. It's a little hefty for KLBC, but great reading!
>[email protected] on behalf of Robyn Stewart wrote:
>> KLBC Story: Meet the Bemorians
>>
>> ghorDaq Qol nawlogh puS 'ej raQ cher.
>
>We have two words referring to beaming: {jol} "beam aboard" (the canon example
>is {HIjol} "beam me aboard"), and {Qol} "beam away" (used by the warden on
>Rura Pente to refer to Kirk and McCoy's escape: {Qollu'ta'}). In both of
>these verbs, the subject is the person who operates the machinery, and the
>object is the person who is transported. Furthermore, neither of these means
>"beam down." I suppose for that, you'd need to say {jolHa'} (unless that
>indicates some sort of transporter accident . . .).
>
>Possibly:
>
>ghorDaq nawlogh puS jolHa'lu' 'ej raQ cher.
I don't like {jolHa'}. It does sound like a horrible transporter
accident. {Qol} also rang wrong for me, as it's explicitly "away." {jol}
really sounds okay. For all that it has "aboard" in parentheses in its
gloss, I'm not sure that's necessarily part of it.
Actually, now I'm starting to reverse myself and see the argument for
{Qol}. They beamed away (from the ship) to the surface.
>> bemorngan joqwI'mey Deghmey je
>> jottaHvIS tlhInganpu' 'ej tlhIngan Deghmey HuStaHvIS, morghbe' chaH
>{jottaHvIS} "while they are being calm?" I think you meant {jotlhtaHvIS}
>"while they took them down."
Yep, I figured that out. The typos happen, but what's more impressive is
that sometimes you can tell they happened because Qov didn't look up the
word. Which is impressive when you realize that that means so many other
words are RIGHT without looking them up.
~mark