tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Mar 02 07:06:30 1997

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

RE: ram chal wanI'

Lawrence-vaD jang SuStel, jabbI'IDwIj luqeltaHvIS:
>> 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.

choquvmoH. DujwIj vIvoqtaH neH.

>> >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.

I sort of was being ironic. My Klingon self was bemused by the fact that
these Humans have a star they call the "Dog Star". Would a "real" Klingon
analogize dogs and targhs? Would this real Klingon find it odd? <shrug>

>Heh . . . you could call it {Sagh} . . . (That's a joke.  Really.)  No, I 

bItlhaQqu'. wejpuH... {{;P

>> > 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.

While it is grammatical and has foundation in canon, i'm not very enthused
by this sentence either. It seems very English. Since <pIch> is also a verb,
why didn't Dr. Okrand use <HIpIchQo'!> for "It's not my fault!" ? I think
i should have worked with the suffixes rather than take the lazy way out.
Perhaps <yuQ tInqu' vIleghbejbe'>... hmmm... with <-bejbe'> does the
uncertainity shifts to the verb from the object? Better: <chaq yuQ tInqu'
vIlegh. jISovbejbe'.>

>> >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.

<grin> I do have a history of writing about bats, don't i?

ghunchu'wI' has some good compounds for planes which he has suggested and
used. I should have been more precise. (All together now: "A Klingon may be
inaccurate however...")

- DaQtIq

Back to archive top level