tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Apr 26 14:26:57 1999

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: KLBC: story



T'Lod:
: qaStaHvIS wa'maH vatlh DIS poH, rav legh SuvwI'.
  
pagh:
:> Grammatically this is fine, but it makes no sense in the context of
:> the story.

T'Lod:  
: I just wanted to set a past tense setting for the story.  I was unsure if
: I should use the Type 7 suffixes here.  I thought they might somehow be 
: inappropriate.

You're right.  Type 7 suffixes are unnecessary for the simple past tense.
Just
put {wa'maH vatlh DIS poH} at the beginning of your sentence as a time
stamp if
you mean some (unspecified) time in the 10th century:  

 wa'maH vatlh DIS poH rav legh SuvwI'.
 In the 10th century, a warrior saw a floor. 

Thereafter, Type & suffixes refer to aspectual use in the context of the time
of the story.

 wa'maH vatlh DIS poH wa'logh rav leghpu' SuvwI'.
 Once in the 10th century, a warrior saw (has/had seen) a floor. 
 (i.e. he saw it one specific time)

{qaStaHvIS} is not needed.  Officially, Okrand has used {vatlh DIS poH}
"century" twice in SkyBox card S15 (wherein it was also spelled {vatlh DISpoH}
- though this could be SkyBox's typo, not Okrand's; there is another typo on
the card).

 qItI'nga Duj tera' vatlh DIS poH cha'maH wej HochHom lo'lu'taH 
 the K'Tinga-class remained in use for most of the 23rd century

 tera' vatlh DISpoH cha'maH loS bong QongmeH qItI'nga Duj tI'ang
 ghompu' DIvI' 'ejDo' 'entepray' 
 A sleeper ship of this [K'Tinga] class, the T'Ong, was encountered
 in the 24th century by the USS Enterprise.

Unofficially, another example occurs in the 11/97 "communique" announcing the
opening of Star Trek: The Experience in Las Vegas, which I suspect Okrand
wrote, though it hasn't been confirmed (hasn't anyone asked him about this
text
yet?):

 tera' vatlh DIS poH cha'maH loS bIyIn jeSlaHpa' Hoch. 
 Be the first to journey to the 24th century. 

Notice how he specified *Terran* centuries in all three, to refer to human
dates.  Without {tera'} of course the reader would assume we are talking about
Klingon centuries - as you are in your story - if, in fact, Klingons even
measure time in centuries.  Notice also that he used a simple time stamp
without {qaStaHvIS} "while it occurred" which implies, to me at least, that
you're talking about some activity that lasted throughout the whole century. 
E.g.:

 qaStaHvIS wa'maH vatlh DIS poH Qo'noSDaq may' law' SuvtaH tlhIngan SuvwI'pu'.
 During the 10th century, Klingon warriors fought many battles on Kronos.

: <<ghobe'.  porghDu' yInej.
:  
:> Body parts get <-Du'>. Whole bodies get <-mey>.
:  
: I thought porgh was considered a body part.  Could porghDu' imply separated 
: parts of a body? 

Well, the plural of {porgh} is a matter of some debate.  IIRC, Okrand has
never
actually referred to {porgh} in the plural, or in the singular for that
matter.  pagh's view seems to be the consensus on the List.  However,
"parts of
a body" can only be {porgh 'ay'Du'} - {porgh 'ay'mey} or would imply that the
body parts were "scattered all about", which might be appropriate to a poetic
description of a bloody battlefield with hacked off limbs strewn about.
 


-- 
Voragh                       
Ca'Non Master of the Klingons



Back to archive top level