tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Jul 05 21:41:32 1997

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

Re: De''e' neHbogh charghwI'



charghwI'vo':

On Sat, 5 Jul 1997 01:38:31 -0700 (PDT)  Neal Schermerhorn 
<[email protected]> wrote:

> >> >Well, Klaa says {nom yIghoSqu'} for "Maximum speed."
...
> >toH! chay' mu'tlhegh Damugh? maHvaD yI'ang!
> 
> toH! choqaD'a'? lu'. yIchunglI'! (Note: if chung takes the ship as subject, 
> then the order would be yIchungmoHlI'!)

majQa'! loQ taQ, 'ach vIparHa'. ra'lu'DI', motlhbe' {-lI'}. chaq 
{nom yIchungqu'moHchu' jay'!} vImaS.
 
> I found the original Klingon amusing merely because of my unavoidable 
> English-locked mindset. Of course, it is senseless to assume that this sounds 
> amusing to a Klingon, as the order in question was followed obediently. 
> However - Klaa was kind of a looney by Klingon standards - it is likely that 
> even if it sounded weird to his crew, they would not dare make mention of 
> that!

While I dismiss a lot of ST5's Klingon, some of which Okrand has 
explained was intentionally a backwoods dialect (Doojvetz oh 
nook?) and at least one noun conjunction placed BETWEEN the 
nouns, this example made sense to me the first time I heard it.

> My version is not an 'improvement', but it is, I feel, more direct and 
> to-the-point than Klaa's order. 

I tend to agree, except for the {-lI'}, which just sounds a 
little strange. It sounds like you want the accelleration to be 
continuous up to a goal, but you don't say anything about what 
that goal is. It feels like you are saying, "Accellerate until I 
tell you to stop accellerating." That's not usually how its done.

> -lI' implies a "stopping point" - when 
> accelerating, if no other stopping point is specified (pIvlob Hut 
> yIchunglI'!), it should be clear that one should cease acceleration only when 
> no greater speed can be attained - maximum speed.

I thing perhaps you are thinking a bit much here, along a track 
that others may not follow.
 
> >> SuvwI' DIbej
> > 
> >"We watch the warriors." Nothing else works here. {DI} is a 
> >noun, not a verb. {-bej} is a verb suffix. There's no 
> >ambiguity here. And {SuvwI'} is not ambiguous because {Suv} 
> >is only a verb and never a noun capable of speech.
> 
> HIja', Dalughchu'. <SuvwI' Dabej> vIghItlh 'e' vIHech.

toH!
 
> DaH SaqaDqa'! cha'logh mu'tlheghvam yImugh!
> 
> <SuvwI' Dabej.>

"He definitely acts like a warrior."
"You watch the warrior."
 
> Finally, let me see if I understand this -moH on transitive verbs stuff. 
> 
> >SoHvaD yIH vIleghmoH. "I cause you to see the tribble."
> 
> The object of legh is yIH, because it is what is seen.
> The subject is jIH, because it causes "a change of condition or...a new 
> condition to come into existence." (TKD p. 38)
> The marked noun is the go-between, the thing the subject causes to do the 
> action.

HIja'. bIyaj. There are actually two verbs in English, since 
"cause" is a verb instead of a suffix, so the subject of 
causation is the subject of the verb with {-moH}, the object of 
the root verb (in this case "see") is the object of the verb 
with {-moH}, and the subject of the root verb is the indirect 
object of the verb with {-moH}.
 
> I had never noticed until now that all that -moH canon was involving 
> intransitive nouns^h^h^h^h^hverbs! jIHvaD DayajmoH 'ej qatlho'.
>
> Qermaq

charghwI'





Back to archive top level