tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Feb 20 10:04:08 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: qogh vs. teS
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 23:56:31 -0800
>From: [email protected]
>
>In a message dated 97-02-10 11:39:28 EST, you write:
>
><< >qoghDu'wIj 'ochDaq DIrroptaSvam chaghmoH. >>
>
>peHruS here again: To translate "pour [into the ear] I am the one who
>proposed {'elmoH}; so, I would definitely understand using {chaghmoH}. But,
>I would still have trouble with {chagh} alone.
It boils down to transitivity problems. English doesn't make the
distinctions consistently, so they don't show in the dictionary. "chagh"
is given as "drop." But in English, "drop" means BOTH "to fall under one's
own power" and "to cause something to fall." I personally believe the same
word would not be used for both in Klingon. So which does "chagh" mean?
Could be either. Though it should be only one, which is why it's a bummer
that we left them inconsistent in Hamlet. I can understand your trouble
with bare "chagh": it shows you have a preference for interpreting "chagh"
as intransitive. Trouble is, we don't know.
~mark
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.4, an Emacs/PGP interface
iQB1AwUBMwySCcppGeTJXWZ9AQEhtwL/Rd7lVTAcPwH4yi/w1ORDnbTvrgqXIjnG
fzUcp05WOlCPsxUGioD/WcZCEbV6AKelsrB8i87j5zJhCNB/fJxmD1sTskfn24CR
QNGtBPoEbaAZuMb0mbPgtINMvA2ypLzS
=JF6r
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----