tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Aug 08 12:12:11 1997

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

Re: New word from Okrand



ghItlh charghwI' SuSvaj je:

>>We don't know that all verbs will respond identically to doors
>>and gates just because there is only one name for these
>>objects. I can wash a window and I can click on a window and
>>you know I'm not talking about the same thing, even though I'm
>>only using one name. One window can be resized. The other
>>provides fresh air.
>
>I'm not sure I fully understand your meaning. No-one would advocate
>useing "vegh" in connection to a windows 95 window. The two types of
>window are English homonyms. If the same were true of "lojmIt" in tlhIngan
>Hol, Okrand would not have defined them together as he did. They would be
>listed seperately just as "Hotlh" to scan, and "Hotlh" to project, are
>listed seperately. A gate in a fence is a "lojmIt" and so is the door to
>my house.

If  the dictionary were regular and consistent, which it does not seem to
be, I would agree with this, SuSvaj. But we always must consider the
possibilities.  Just because two glosses are given together for one Klingon
word does not mean they are completely interchangeable. jIH is glossed as
"I" and as "me", but the "me" sense is not usable in a "to-be"
construction. If we see that construction, we know the only correct gloss
of jIH is "I".

Since lojmIt does not specify a surrounding door frame, we cannot
automatically assume vegh can take lojmIt as its object all of the time.
It's similar to the correct plural suffix for qoq - if the robots are
capable of using language, we use -pu' and if not we use -mey. If the
lojmIt is in a doorframe, we can use vegh; if it is a simple gate, we
cannot. Or at least that's how it seems.

Qermaq




Back to archive top level