tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Dec 27 18:50:17 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: My old neighbor
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: My old neighbor
- Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1998 21:48:59 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
- Priority: NORMAL
I can't quite agree with your pronouncement here.
On Wed, 23 Dec 1998 09:44:02 -0800 (PST) Steven Boozer
<[email protected]> wrote:
> charghwI' comments on peHruS's suggestion:
> : > In Klingon {ngo'} is not as ambiguous
> : >as "old" in English, but if {nI'} can be used adjectivally to
> : >describe an aspect of a noun which is not limited to time
> : >related nouns, like {poH}, then this should work fine.
>
> SuStel:
> : Why should {nI'} be able to describe an aspect of a noun, rather than a
> : noun? {nI'} means "be lengthy (in duration)," and {jIl nI'} means "the
> : neighbor who is lengthy in duration." Nonsense. You're trying to describe
> : the time over which you've known the neighbor, not the neighbor himself.
I can see this going either way. It would be nice if Okrand
could clear this up. Anyway, since your concern is clearly of
possible merit and we have no confirmation one way or the other,
I'll stick to my conservative roots with the language and avoid
this use of the verb.
> People get so confused as to those parenthetical comments in the glossaries,
> which Okrand uses merely to distinguish between two or more English homonyms.
> For example:
>
> tIq "be long, be lengthy" (of an object)
> nI' "be long, be lengthy" (duration)
>
> Although I quite agree with SuStel that {nI'} would be inappropriate to refer
> to a person, it is used with nouns other than {poH}:
>
> poH nI'
> a long time. KGT
>
> For example, a life {yIn} can be {nI'}:
>
> nI'be' yInmaj 'ach wovqu'
> Our lives burn short and bright. (Anthem)
>
> yIn nI' yISIQ 'ej yIchep
> Live long and prosper! (Radio Times)
>
> as well as a day {jaj}, a night {ram} and even "today" {DaHjaj}:
>
> nI' jajvam
> This day is long. (st.klingon BBS)
>
> nI' ram
> The night is long. KGT
>
> nI' DaHjaj
> Today is long. (st.klingon BBS)
This is where I'm tempted to go with peHruS, since {jIl} is not
just a noun. It is a relationship. The person referred to as
{jIl} is not simply a specific person. He or she is a person
with a specific relationship to the speaker. That relationship
has a duration as much as any day or life or period of time.
I think your restriction is wrong, though I will accept it until
Okrand says otherwise.
> It may be that to Klingons, an old friend, like an old warrior, is merely one
> who is advanced in years, however long the acquaintance.
>
> SuvwI'pu' qan tu'lu'be'
> There are no old warriors. TKW
That doesn't make sense. Remember that your use of "old" here is
an English one, not a Klingon one. I don't think you can
generalize how Klingons use the word "old" because they don't
USE the word "old". They use {qan} and {ngo'}, etc.
> If you really need to distinguish between an elderly friend {jup qan} whom
> you've recently befriended and a younger friend whom you've trusted your
> entire
> life, you may be forced to say something like
>
> poH nI' jupwI' ghaH matlh Qup'e'
> Young Maltz is my long-time friend.
I don't see the grammmatical function of {poH} here. Are you
using a noun-noun here? poH jupwI'? That doesn't really make
much sense. Meanwhile, without some sort of Type 5 suffix, {poH}
doesn't have a reason to be here. If you are going to go this
far out, I think you have to go even farther.
qaStaHvIS poH nI' jupwI' ghaH matlh Qup'e'.
I don't think that our English idiom "long time friend" can be
directly translated, word for word into Klingon as you have
apparently done.
> _________________________________________________________________________
> Steven Boozer The University of Chicago Library [email protected]
charghwI' 'utlh