tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Feb 28 05:11:40 1997

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: ram chal wanI'

> ram chal wanI'

My ability to read large chunks of Klingon text is poor at best, I 
normally skim only a line or two (if that) when I see a huge post in 
<<Hol>>.  And yet, when I saw DaQtIq's piece, and the line:

     chal SIj qeylIS betleH

I simply had to read more!  First, because I can't recall ever seeing 
anyone use the verb "SIj" before, and second because it was such a 
splendid image.

So, while I normally don't go in for such things (yeah, right), a few 
comments.

>chal SIj qeylIS betleH 'ej tlhIch Doqqu' regh chal. muvong.

Such a perfect usage of "vong." 

> Hovghom law' vIghov.

I don't know if "Hovghom" is canonical, and if it's not then I'm quite 
impressed.  Most of us tend to shy away from constructing compound 
nouns, for fear that they won't be readily understood by others.  In 
most cases this is a very reasonable concern, and probably the best 
course to take.  But "Hovghom" works.  Even without the context, it's 
got to mean "constellation."  Of course, if this is already a canonical 
word from TKW or the CD, then I'm less impressed. ;)

>Hov wovqu' vIlegh. targhHovqoq 'oH.

Okay, I confess, you made me smile here.  How to say "the Dog star" in 
Klingon?  Are targhmey the same as dogs?  The question is rendered moot 
by the excellent use of "-qoq" here.  Just splendid.

> cha' yuQ vIleghlaw'. yuQ Doq vIlegh 'ej chaq yuQ tInqu' vIlegh.
> DIch vIghajbe'.

This is on my list of grammatical details I want to pry out of Okrand.  
Does one "possess" certainty? (This by the way is precisely the sort of 
word I'd expect to find a Klingon verb for).  You can argue that while 
this is an abstraction, one can possess it just as we can say one 
possesses honor (no TKD or TKW handy, but I'm fairly certain [sic] that 
we have canonical examples using "have" with honor). But does that make 
it appropriate to use with "DIch?"  I understood what DaQtIq intended, 
but I don't know if it's grammatical.  SuStel? Seqram?

>chuS SuS 'ej loQ qamDu'wIj bIrmoH. (waqwIj vItuQHa'moHta'.)

I liked this too, an expositional aside. Nicely done.

>ram chalDaq puvwI' puS tu'lu'.

This one confused me a bit. "puvwI'" is still a little too open-ended 
for me. Lots of things fly.


>chaq juH DungDaq jIQong.

This ending makes me wonder if perhaps we should begin translating James 
Taylor songs into Klingon?

So, all in all, I find myself well rewarded for taking the time (alas, 
quite a bit of time) to work through DaQtIq's prose. The fault is my 
own, and I suspect I'm quite a bit better for the effort.  Thanks!

Lawrence
-- 
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
:: Dr Lawrence M Schoen, Director   :: The KLI is a nonprofit ::
:: The Klingon Language Institute   :: tax exempt corporation ::
:: POB 634, Flourtown, PA 19031 USA :: DaH HuchlIj'e' ghonob  ::
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
:: [email protected] ::   http://www.kli.org   :: 215/836-4955 ::
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Back to archive top level