tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Mar 18 08:29:21 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: tlhab ja'qu'ghach
>Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 19:31:01 -0800 (PST)
>From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>
>
>> there's a bit I'd like to address. In the 18th line (of the Klingon text),
>I
>> use "paghHommo'." Completely uncanonical, but the way it works it this:
>The
>> word for "all" with the diminuitive suffix means "most," so I decided to use
>> "paghHom" as "almost nothing." So I translated "for light and transient
>causes"
>> into "because of almost nothing." Much clearer, isn't it?
>
>If you need to explain it, then there's another problem. But I don't think I
>can accept your analysis of {paghHom}. And as for my own, "minor nothing" is
>pretty nonsensical.
Makes no sense to me, either, fwiw. (as a side point, you can say in Welsh
"fawr neb", literally "big nobody", to mean "a few people." So here we
have a *larger* form of "nothing" and not a smaller one for a similar
meaning. Goes to show you that you can't count on hindsight like this).
This sounds like a pretty classic hindsight word to me (except that even
after it's explained it still isn't so hot).
~mark