tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Nov 25 11:06:17 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Misc
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 03:16:09 -0800 (PST)
>From: "Anthony.Appleyard" <[email protected]>
>
> Neal Schermerhorn <[email protected]> wrote (Subject: Re: plans):-
>> Note: Complete refutation of QAO contained herein!
> Sorry: what is `QAO'?
Question as Object.
>> ghItlh David Crowell "The human knows who took the money" ...
> Here we come again to the lack of a Klingon for the interrogative adjective
>"which?". For a main clause `which?' question "Which ship needs a new
>torpedo-tube?" would this be OK? {chetvi' chu' ghajnISbogh Duj'e' ngu' nuq?}
>"What is the identity of the ship that needs a new torpedo-tube?". Perhaps for
>an indirect question "Maltz knows which ship needs a new torpedo-tube?" would
>this be OK? {chetvi' chu' ghajnISbogh Duj'e' ngu' Sov matlh}?
Huh? {ngu'} is a verb, "identify". You're using it as a noun.
> The word `kris' for a wavy-bladed dagger (Okrandized to {QIS} in KGT), and
>the weapon that it stands for, are both taken straight from Malaya!
Yep, caught that one.
> Sorry, but what is parHol?
"paramount language", slang used only on this list (and almost exclusively
in English sentences) to refer to "Klingon" as spoken/mangled/promulgated
by Paramount sources (other than Okrand).
> Has anyone yet heard how to make a generalized adverbial? I.e. if {X} is any
>desired stative verb "is X", how to say e.g. "he writes X-ly"? {chech} = "is
>drunk", but how to say "This ship handles drunkenly when going astern. Check
>its control wiring."?
No. But how about {chechwI'Hey Da Duj, HeDtaHvIS}. I'm not sure there's
necessarily something meaningful for a "generalized adverbial" for every
verb. It *certainly* isn't something the language needs, not with
dependent clauses like these.
> KGT gives {jor} = "explode". This, I suppose, *{jorwI'} = "an explosive"
>instead of having to use {peng} for ordinary immobile explosive devices like I
>have seen before.
We had {jor} in TKD already, and jorwI' for explosive. p.91.
> KGT gives {lupwI'} = "jitney", "bus". (A jitney is a sort of passenger
>vehicle.) Thus, presumably, (a) {lup} = "transport physically" as distinct
>from {jol} = "transport by beaming"; (b) At long last we have a word for a
>ground vehicle instead of having to use {Duj} for all vehicles alike.
lupwI' is from CK.
> Is there a verb "pertain to, relate to"? If this verb is X, then {B X} would
>mean "it is B-ic", "it is B-al". This meaning is not always the same as
>ordinary ownership such as Klingon expresses by plain apposition. Compare the
>French constructions {un fusil de Z} = "a gun belonging to Z, or made from the
>substance Z" and {un fusil a` Y} = "a gun which fires Y, or for doing Y".
not that I know of, but the N-N construction seems to be quite broad
semantically and could handle most of these situations.
> Without making two sentences of it, is there any way agreed yet of saying
>e.g. "I had to take 3 loads of garbage out of the ship in which you fled."?
What's wrong with making two sentences out of it? Without making more than
one word out it, is there a way to translate {qaleghchu'} into English?
No? Then we'd better change English, right?
~mark
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.4, an Emacs/PGP interface
iQB1AwUBNHshlMppGeTJXWZ9AQGxoQL/VR162TKEfDTeLd9vsplwo45ehowxBEn5
vZIq8UGJXWKAmJl9553rIfz9jo1WJd14kcbvK+kyY/VnWf+l8K+XC4Q/yhG7yQ7r
NGuu4kX6KpLVXvpgTRLBIgvioXTIojiF
=4k8I
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----