tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Dec 10 16:33:15 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: KLBC: Hol vI'lo 'e' vInID (vagh)
- From: "Andeen, Eric" <[email protected]>
- Subject: RE: KLBC: Hol vI'lo 'e' vInID (vagh)
- Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 17:34:24 -0700
tuv'el jIjang. jIjatlh:
> > Enough for what? In English, we throw the word "enough"
> > around a lot, but we often don't ask or know the answer
> > to that question. If you can't answer it, think again
> > about what you really mean. If you can, use that answer
> > to be more precise. For example:
> >
> > jeDbe'ba' qettlhupqoqraj. Ha'DIbaH tlhorghmoHchu'be'.
> > jeDbe'ba' qettlhupqoqraj. muyonmoHbe'.
> > jeDbe'ba' qettlhupqoqraj. QIv.
mujang tuv'el. jatlh:
> What I'm trying to say is: it's not thick enough,
> it's not dense enough, it's too thin.
It's not thick enough for *what*???? My whole point is that you are just
saying "it's not thick enough" without reference to why it should be thick
or what standard you are comparing it against. If it's just common knowledge
that <qettlhup> should be a certain consistence, and this is stuff is just
not even close, then that's fine. Just know that the standard is well know
and implied.
We don't have a word in Klingon to say that an action (including a quality)
is "enough" or not enough, but we do have a brand new word - <tlhoy> - to
say that it is excessive. It's possible that <tlhoyHa'> means "not enough",
alhtough without confirmation from Okrand we don't even know if <tlhoyHa'>
is allowed at all. You can negate the verb, though. If something is not
enough of one quality, then it is too much of its opposite: <tlhoy jeDHa'>.
> > I'm also not exactly sure what you mean when you say
> > <Hoch Hutlhlaw'>. It's grammatically fine, but I am
> > having a hard time interpreting it.
> The idea I had in mind was: It lacks everything,
> there's nothing good about it, If there's something
> that's needed to make good qettlhup, you can be sure
> it's not in *this* batch.
I think my problem was that <Hoch> is a bit too vague. I think in this
situation I would probably say <tlhorghHa'chu'> or <'eyHa'chu'>. If I wanted
to be a bit more expansive, I might add <qettlhup nIv vutlu'meH, Dochmey
law' poQlu'. Hoch Dochvam Hutlhba' qettlhupvam'e' jay'!>.
pagh
Beginners' Grammarian
tlhIngan Hol Mailing List FAQ
http://www.bigfoot.com/~dspeers/klingon/faq.htm