tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Feb 08 15:24:48 1999

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: Dreaming in Klingon

I don't think Klingons would use the suffix difference to make the
difference between a dead person and a living one.

In K'ryntes' example, I'd call it as {HoDwI' porgh}.  The body is the thing
not capable of using language (you know what I mean!), not the captain.

In Lawrence's example, I think Klingons would only do this if they were
trying to be clever (not a prized trait among Klingons).  It's saying "I'm
not actually going to tell you the information I mean, but I'm going to tell
you enough to figure it out if you put your mind to it."

I still don't think using the two sets of suffixes flip-flops depending on
the current state of affairs.  I think a noun typically gets one or the
other.  A {HoD} is a thing which is capable of using language.  A captain
just isn't a captain if he cannot speak.  (And a sandwich just isn't a
sandwich . . . .)  And if he isn't a captain, then using the noun {HoD} is
just plain incorrect.

Stardate 99104.4

-----Original Message-----
From: Dr. Lawrence M. Schoen <>
To: Multiple recipients of list <>
Date: Saturday, February 06, 1999 2:37 PM
Subject: Re: Dreaming in Klingon

>K'ryntes ( wrote:
>> I would only use -wIj if I was talking about *HoDwIj porgh*
>> (specifically referring to his shell).
>This is pretty much how I feel as well. It allows for the following
>scene: Two klingons are searching for their captain, who failed to
>return from a routine survey mission. They come upon a corpse in Klingon
>uniform, but the individual is not immediately identifiable (why? I
>don't know, let's say he's been decapitated with a betleH and his killer
>took the head as a trophy). Anyway, you get:
>tlhIngan wa'DIch: HoDma' wISam'a'?
>tlhIngan cha'DIch: ghobe'. HoDmaj wISam neH.
>Which, I happen to think is particularly nifty.

Back to archive top level