tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Sep 11 23:04:30 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: (Requiem) fixed loS'DIch 'ay'
- From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: KLBC: (Requiem) fixed loS'DIch 'ay'
- Date: Thu, 11 Sep 97 20:12:12 UT
[email protected] on behalf of Qov wrote:
> jatlh, ja', tlhob and other "verbs of speaking" can be used alone
> with no object:
> {jatlh SoS} - The mother speaks.
> They can be used with objects that are the name of the thing said.
> {SoQ Dajatlh} - You give [lit: speak] a speech.
> {tlhIngan Hol wIjalth} - We speak Klingon.
> {lut boja'} - You tell the story.
I'd be inclined to go along with this ({Dotlh yIja'} is probably what Marc
Okrand had originally translated Christopher Lloyd's line "Report status!"
as), except there's some evidence against it.
For one thing, there are exactly zero uses of {ja'} with that sort of object
in canon. In every case, {ja'} has been used with a prefix indicating the
person being spoken to, and translated that way.
Some may argue that the same prefix-changing games that's going on with
{qajatlh} may be going on here. I don't think so. (Besides the fact that I
have serious problems with any universal application of this rule. For
example, {jIHvaD Daj Qu'} "The mission is interesting to me" would become
{muDaj Qu'}, and I don't believe that.)
Okrand has said that the prefix games occur when the indirect object is first
or second person. Fine. Explain {yIja'Qo'} "Don't tell him!" (TKD p. 47)
Perhaps the thing spoken may become the object of {ja'}, perhaps not. But
the person being spoken to definitely can be.
Besides, words like {peja''egh} and {maja'chuq} also suggest that the object
is the person being spoken to.
--
SuStel
qoH vuvbe' SuStel
Stardate 97697.0