tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Jun 30 07:23:32 1997

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: KLBC story: puyjaq

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

>Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 00:51:08 -0700 (PDT)
>From: Robyn Stewart <[email protected]>
>
>At 09:40 PM 6/26/97 -0700, SuStel wrote:
>>jatlh Qov:

>>> <De'wI'> jatlh HoD. <qon: Hovtay' tlh-ng-cha'SaD loSvatlh SochmaH 
>>> chorgh wInuDta'.
>>
>>Given that we know little or nothing about the Klingon writing system, I don't 
>>think we should go and assume that they'd abbreviate things like this.  (Not 
>>that I know what you're abbreviating.  The first one is obviously {tlhIngan}.)
>
>yIloyqa'. It's just the catalogue number of a solar system.  TN-2478.
>>> pagh 'oS.

It took me a second to work out at first, but it makes sense.  We don't
know if Klingons catalog things like that?  *Shrug* so what?  Qov is
projecting a little, it's her story.  So long as we understand it, that's
what counts.  Though to be sure, I can easily see this throwing a beginner
for a loop that will take a while to pull out of.

>>> <wej Hovtay' tlh-ng-2478 wInuD!
>>
>>Got tired of writing out numbers?  :)
>
>Same number.  I thought it might be clearer that it was a catalogue
>designation if I wrote it closer to the way we do in English.  Guess not.

Works for me.

>>> <puqloD> jatlh HoD.
>
>>Is the navigator the captain's son?  I suppose so.  Or are you trying to 
>>translate the word "son" when used as a general term of address for a superior 
>>to an underling?  In English, "son" might be used, but we have no idea what 
>>Klingons use.
>
>If I didn't like you I could poke you in the nose for being so picky,
>SuStel.  It was intended as a very mild term of condescension. The navigator
>is, after all, *someone's* son. 

I read it (wrongly) as "loDHom," which is what I was expecting, and moved
on.  "loDHom" might be a better choice; Gowron used it in a very similar
sense in the CD-ROM.

>>> <HoD quv> qoy' chIjwI'.  <ghayan SepvamDaq tlhIlmey potlh lutu'lu'.
>>
>>So far, every time we see {tu'lu'} with a plural object, it doesn't use the 
>>{lu-} prefix.  I'd suggest that this be changed to {tlhIlmey potlh tu'lu'}.  
>>There's at least one more {tu'lu'} below.
>
>I think lutu'lu' is the Klingon whom. What is it with the lu- prefix anyway?
>Does anyone else find that all the other prefixes come naturally but you
>have to go back and do a deliberate check for missing lu- prefixes? 

I like that comparison to "whom"!!  We must tell MO that; it's the sort of
thing he'd appreciate.

lu-... to an extent.  Sometimes DI- and tI-.  Those sing/pl. distinctions
are in the minority in the Klingon prefix-table.

>>> 'ach bong pIvghor chu'.
>>bong?  bong?!?
>
>You're just trying to trick me into opening the mu'ghom.  bong:
>accidentally, by accident. Hong leQ lIStaHvIS bong pIvghor leQ mup.
>DaHarbe''a'?  

I understood it. :)  Maybe he was just incredulous at the enormity of the
crewman's gaffe.

~mark

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.4, an Emacs/PGP interface

iQB1AwUBM7fBXMppGeTJXWZ9AQGaHgL/VDGl1NEvuGBkqcQq3ILsurPOIFCmBYOi
EEYKh22InY/j4ou4bvjjBnrcP8Cpsnyj90jM966KL6wtAVx/ZBhovQGntihJyAV7
BJAjdOqPSaeVhgUvXj7f2VFLvNG2P3rv
=AojE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Back to archive top level