tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Jan 07 07:23:38 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: lut tlhaQ
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Date: Mon, 6 Jan 1997 16:50:39 -0800
>From: "eric d. zay" <[email protected]>
>
>qaStaHvIS wa' ram maw'wI' bIghHa'vo' nargh neH cha' maw'wI'pu'.
If it's plural (cha' maw'wI'pu') it should be "luneH".
> weghmeH pa'meyDajvo' narghta' ej
>DaH bIghHa' Dop toStaH chaH.
"weghmeH pa'meyDajvo'" is hard to understand, partly because it should be
"pa'meychajvo'". How about "mo'meychajvo'"?
>tugh qachDungDaq paw.
> jenqu' qachvam vaj pa'vo' Hoch veng
>leghlaH maw'wI'pu'.
>maw'wI bIghHa' retlhDaq Suy qach tu'lu', 'ach qachvetlh Dung SIchmeH,
"luSIchmeH" is probably better.
>SupnIS chaH.
>Sup maw'wI' wa'DIch ej Suy qachDaq Saqchu'. jupDajvaD jatlh "naDev yIghoS!
> ngeDqu'!"
I like "Saqchu'"
>'ach Supqangbe' maw'wI' cha'DIch. chaq pummo' SupvIp ghaH.
>jatlh maw'wI' cha'DIch "ghobe'! not jIQap!"
>tugh, qech Suq maw'wI' wa'DIch. wepDajvo' lel wovmoHwI mach.
Hrm. "qech Suq"...? That's a somewhat opaque metaphore. Hmm. An odd
thought: "qech qelchoH"?
Remember, the object comes first: "wovmoHwI' mach lel".
>qachDaq wovmoHwI' lan ghaH ej 'oH chu'. maw'wI' bIghHa' qIp wovtIH.
>jatlh maw'wI' wa'DIch "DaH naDev bIghoSmeH, wovtIHDaq bIyItlaH! HIghoS!"
>tInqu' moj maw'wI' cha'DIch mInDu'. jupDaj mu'mey HarlaHbe' ghaH.
"tInqu' moj"?? Too many main verbs there. You're thinking English, where
adjectives can be predicate complements. But this is Klingon, and there
are no adjectives. "tInqu'choH .... mInDu'."
>jatlh maw'wI' cha'DIch "jImaw' 'e' DaHar'a'?............
>..........wovtIHDaq jIyIttaHvIS, 'oH Dachu'Ha'bej!"
>
>Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha!!!!!!!!!
>
>I realize that I have taken a liberty in using wov as a noun. This is
>based on *maSwov*. I am also a little dubious about using *qach Dung* for
>"roof", but I could think of nothing else. Other than that, comments and
>criticisms welcome.
Yes, it's a bit of a liberty, and I didn't comment on it because you did.
"Roof" also made sense mostly because you clarified it... which is a valid
way of doing things. :)
~mark
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.4, an Emacs/PGP interface
iQB1AwUBMtJqacppGeTJXWZ9AQG08gL9F7gW4N2Ln8p2uMdFBKDh5yRqcow3p2ZE
eUn9II3VH3s8BbynqcAXsWY0+ks8In2QZxlJTW7pjbCIQHfwP5jE4/SBuxRY1xLu
iXxhfjcKR6sgRWurgjAEOV1fYx9GNqD+
=tzFH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----