tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Nov 30 12:32:05 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: maHagh tlhInganpu' (was:Klingon words for "subject"...)
- From: "Mark E. Shoulson" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: maHagh tlhInganpu' (was:Klingon words for "subject"...)
- Date: Sun, 30 Nov 1997 15:32:01 -0500 (EST)
- In-reply-to: <l03020907b0995cf39f76@[206.150.220.146]> (message from AlanAnderson on Wed, 19 Nov 1997 21:20:27 -0800 (PST))
>Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 21:20:27 -0800 (PST)
>From: Alan Anderson <[email protected]>
>
>ja' ter'eS:
>>{rInpu'DI' may', raQ wIcheHmoH. maQong DoywI'pu'. maSop ghunghwI'pu'.}
>
>Why even use the {ma-} prefix? {Qong Doy'wI'pu'. Sop ghunghwI'pu'.}
>
>I think it's very odd, and I don't think it's *ever* called for.
>In my opinion, its usefulness would be in it's jarring effect.
>I'll file it along with lone {-ghach} on a verb, {HochDIch} and
>{paghlogh} etc., and the possibility of a type 5 {-luH} or {-la'}
>verb pseudosuffix.
Hey! I used {paghlogh} before it was cool, years before KGT came out,
because it was the Right Thing. It didn't seem even marked to me; I
remember Krankor thought it was neat because it said what I wanted but was
totally un-English.
It was in translating the Four Questions, of which one is "on other nights,
we don't dip [food into liquid] even once; tonight: twice." I expressed
the "not even once" as {paghlogh}: no times. Worked beautifully. There
"was no rule agianst it," and it conformed to the rules: {pagh} is given as
a number, and -logh can be attached to numbers... I wouldn't have thought
it marked before Okrand said it was,
~mark