tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Mar 13 17:59:45 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: originality of "jatlhchuqghach"
- From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>
- Subject: RE: originality of "jatlhchuqghach"
- Date: Fri, 14 Mar 97 00:19:56 UT
jatlh qoror:
> qoror here. I have a slight dilemma. Recently on this list, when I
> needed to write "Conversational Klingon" in tlhIngan Hol, I chose
> "jatlhchuqghachvaD tlhIngan Hol," or, for those of you who are lazy,
"Klingon
> for Conversation." But "jatlhchuqghach" "conversation" sprang in my head so
> quickly that I have suspicions that I actually didn't make it up. Tell me,
did
> anyone use that word before on this list? If I saw it before, it might have
> popped it my head and me thinking it was my own invention. Tell me!
Because of transitivity problems, I'd hesitate to say {jatlhchuq}. "Speak
each other" doesn't make much sense, and the object of {jatlh} seems to be
something that must be spoken. "I'd rather see {ja'chuq} "confer," become
{ja'chuqghach} for "conversation." But the idea is a good one! majQa'! (Heh
. . . it'd keep one from forgetting that {ja'chuq} as a noun is the name of an
outdated succession ritual, and not "conversation.")
> By the way, -egh and -chuq are very good words for -ghach. How about
another
> interesting one that I -know- I thought up? "ghob'eghghach" "civil war."
Similar transitivity problem. I don't think that the object of {ghob} is the
entity being fought, it's the war being fought (which makes it different than
{Suv} and probably {Qoj}). I'm referring to TKW p. 179:
noH ghoblu'DI' yay quv law' Hoch quv puS
In war, there is nothing more honorable than victory.
Therefore, I wouldn't say {ghob'egh}. However, we don't know how {Qoj} works;
perhaps you *can* say {Qoj'egh}. Certainly one can say {Suv'egh}. Still,
{Suv'eghghach} sounds like you're fighting some inner battle.
--
SuStel
Beginners' Grammarian
Stardate 97199.2