tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Aug 06 11:29:28 1997

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: KLBC story: bemorngan tIqIH

lab SuStel:
>[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 . . .).

Daj.  I've been using Qol for outbound transport and jol for shipward 
transport since I got my second edition TKD and I think you're the 
first person ever to challenge me on it. 

~mark (in a different response to my story) wrote:
> Actually, now I'm starting to reverse myself and see the argument 
> for {Qol}. They beamed away (from the ship) to the surface.

~mark, you reinforced Qol as "beam away" for me, by praising 
the newbie Qov on the MUSH for using it.  The canon SuStel quotes 
seems to support his argument though, unforunately for the usefulness 
of this word. Voragh, O canon master, does all evidence point to to 
jol and Qol being actions of the transporter operator, the former to 
get people to the pad and the latter to send them to another 
location?  Can I say DujDaq jIjol?  Or only vIjollu' or jIjol'egh 
(presumably the latter would be remote control). I'm preparing for a 
permanent brain adjustment here, so lets get this right.

>> veng potlhDaq 'el negh,
> We know that the object of {'el} is the location being entered, so 
> to avoid the redundancy of this sentence, you simply say
> veng potlh 'el negh

Isn't it: "HIq DaSammeH tachDaq yI'el" ?

>> 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."

HIja'.  vIqawHa'pu'.  

~mark again:
> 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.

But it's bad because while SuStel and Seqram can figure out that I 
wrote jot for jotlh, a beginner wouldn't have much of a chance.  Also 
bad because if I coast on the words I have instead of getting out 
the wordlist and learning new ones, I'm never going to capture that 
last bit of the wordlist--heck at the rate Marc is adding new words 
lately, the percentage of the vocab I know has actually been going 
*down*. :)  But I'm a happy Qov. Less than a month ago I was whining 
to the list, begging for "egg" and "milk" and now we have QIm and 
pel'aQ, with milk promised to be on the way.  My husband is learning 
to think like a Klingon nitpicker: as soon as I told him, he said 
"Does qIm *include* the pel'aq or is it just the stuff inside?"  

- Qov, who will make celebratory Klingon pancakes when she learns the 
word for milk. Klingon waffles if we get a word for some kind of 
shortening (like oil, butter or fat) at the same time.

Back to archive top level