tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Feb 28 16:32:50 1997

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

RE: ram chal wanI'

On Friday, February 28, 1997 8:22 AM, [email protected] on behalf of Dr. 
Lawrence M. Schoen wrote:

> > 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.

I believe I've seen it a number of times, the most obvious example being in

qaStaHvIS wa' ram loSSaD Hugh SIjlaH qetbogh loD.

> > Hovghom law' vIghov.
> 
> I don't know if "Hovghom" is canonical, and if it's not then I'm quite 
> impressed.

No, it's not canonical.

> 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."

I agree.  DaQtIq is very good at knowing when a compound will work.

> >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.

I don't like using {-qoq} or any of the other Type 3 Noun Suffixes this way.  
Unless Klingons actually call the star {targhHov}, then it *isn't* so-called.  
And this isn't trying to be ironic.

Heh . . . you could call it {Sagh} . . . (That's a joke.  Really.)  No, I 
don't have a better alternative to {targhHovqoq}.

> > 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?

Well, there's {pIch vIghajbe'} "It's not my fault," on the first page of TKD 
and in the Useful Phrases section.

Then there's {Hov ghajbe'bogh ram rur pegh ghajbe'bogh jaj} "A day without 
secrets is like a night without stars"; the night hardly "possesses" stars 
literally.  Stars are merely visible at night.

I don't have a problem with {DIch vIghaj}.

> >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.

Yeah, I was wondering if they were bats, as this was night.  Still, there's 
not much we can do about it.

-- 
SuStel
Beginners' Grammarian
Stardate 97163.5

Back to archive top level