tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Dec 03 15:44:26 1999

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: KLBC: wot /pong/ vIlo'meH vInID

jatlh tuv'el:
> > DaH SoHvaD nuchHomna' vIpongtaH jIH.
> > Now *I'm* calling you a definite little coward.

Note that {nuchHomna'} means "definite bit of a coward."  That is, the
{-Hom} makes the {nuch} less significant, or less of a coward.

What does the "little" in "little coward" mean?  Does it mean {mach}
"small"?  Not really.  If anything, it's meant to make the coward himself
seem smaller, less important, but his cowardice is not in any way

How about

DaH nuch'a'na' qapong.
Now I call you a definite great coward.

Not a literal translation from the English, but it conveys the idea better.

jatlh tuv'el:
> > be'nalwI' chaj DoghvaD be' 'IH pong'a' ghaH?
> > He called my wife's silly friend a beautiful woman?

According to KGT pp.202-3, {maqoch} and {chaj} are only used when good
friends of the appropriate sex are ADDRESSING one another.  You probably
don't use these words outside of direct address.  They're not nouns you can
use just anywhere and maintain any kind of honor.  I'd suggest falling back
on {jupna'}, as per KGT p. 202.

(Consider the example of a father calling his son {maqoch}.  For
English-speaking Terrans, this is similar to, but not identical to, a father
calling his son "buddy."  A son would never respond to his father by calling
him "buddy," however, just as a Klingon son would never call his father
{maqoch}.  Now, consider: would a narrator, such as yourself in the above
sentence, talking about the father and son ever call the son the "father's
buddy"?  No, never.  The term is only used in direct address.  I suggest
that the Klingon idea is the same, and {maqoch} and {chaj} are only used by
the participants in the relationship.)

Stardate 99923.3

Back to archive top level