tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Nov 07 09:04:24 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC naDev jIchu'
- From: "Robyn Stewart" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: KLBC naDev jIchu'
- Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 09:04:52 PST
- Organization: NLK Consultants, Inc.
- Priority: normal
Doneq wrote:
>ghItlh Qov
>> At 13:00 97-11-04 -0800, Dawut wrote:
>Sorry, but I'm Dawut is someone else :)
HIvqa' veqlargh. I manually pull names out of the document window
into the reply window and I must have pulled the wrong one on this
case.
>> }ghItlh Alan Anderson
>> }> ["Worf and Gowron. We're Klingons," says one Klingon
truthfully.] > }>
>> }> ja' charghwI':
>> }> ><wo'rIv ghawran je. tlhIngan maH!> ja' wa' tlhIngan 'ej vIt.
>> }>
>> }> Remembering {DeSvetlh chop chev}, I'd add a sentence and lose a
>> }> word: <...> ja wa' tlhIngan; vIt.
>> }
>> }{DeSvetlh chop chev}? "He bites that arm he separates"? vIyajbe'.
>> }jIHvaD yIQIj.
>>
>> It's clipped imperative, the correct way to address pets. From one
>> of the audio tapes. It means "Bite that arm off" literally "Bite
>> that arm! Separate it!"
>
>I understand that now; but I still don't know why I should leave the
>{'ej} out. I don't quite see the difference between {ja' 'ej vIt.}
>and {ja'. vIt.} and why the latter may (or may not) be better. Or
>just because it's shorter?
"Why do you leave 'ej out" is a valid question, and the answer is
just, that's the way it seems to be done with the Klingon imperative.
Consider other examples like:
QaghmeylIj tIchID yIyoH
targhlIj yIngagh yIruch
I don't think we've ever seen imperatives joined with conjunctions in
canon. I wouldn't say it was wrong to use {'ej}, just stilted and
less than natural.