tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Jan 09 16:10:20 1999

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: KLBC: HovqIj jun Hov wov

ja' ghunchu'wI':

> ja' HovqIj:
> >> > rut 'uchlu'meH wej 'uSDu' ghajbogh 'uchwI''e' lo'lu'.
> >>
> >> jIyaj, 'ach Qatlh. chaq mu'tlheghvam DanapmoHlaH.
> >
> >chaq. <wej 'uSDu' ghajbogh 'uchwI''e'> vItammeH vIqel je:
> >
> >rut 'uchlu'meH baS qamHey lo'lu'
> >rut 'uchlu'meH baS 'uchwI' lo'lu'
> >rut 'uchlu'meH ('uchmeH) raSHomHey lo'lu'
> >rut 'uchlu'meH 'uchmeH jan lo'lu'
> >rut jan 'uchlu'meH jan pIm lo'lu'. janvetlhDaq jan wa'DIch jomlu'.
> >
> >DaH yajmeH ngeD'a'? loQ qab Hoch mu'tlheghmeyvam. chaq QInvam
> >vIngeHta'DI' mu'tlhegh qaq vItu'.
> rut wej 'uSDaq Qam.
> rut ngaDmoH wej 'uS.

mu'tlheghmeywIj rur cha' mu'tlheghmeylIjvam. jan Segh tlhojpu'chugh
laDwI', mu'tlhegh qech yaj. jan Segh tlhojpu'be'chugh laDwI', Qatlh
mu'tlhegh yajmeH Qu'.

> rut vIHbe'chu'meH wej 'uS ngaDmoHwI' lo'lu'.

I kind of like this one. It seems understandable. I only have a question
about <wej 'uS ngaDmoHwI'> = "three leg stabilizer"/"stabilizer of three
legs".  <wej 'uS ngaDmoHwI'> seems to be a strange kind of N-N
construction. For N2 is a transitive verb which became a noun, the <wej
'uS> seem to still belong to the former verb.
wej 'uS ngaDmoH - it stabilizes three legs
==> wej 'uS ngaDmoHwI' - something that stabilizes three legs
I hope you can understand what I want to say. So, can we interpret the
N-N construction so loosely? Please enlighten me.

> >> > ...rut pay' wovqu'choH jan 'otlh tIH lelmoHmo'.
> >>
> >> I'm really not sure what you mean by this use of <lel>.
> >
> >"...because it makes a photon ray get out." The best I could get for
> >"emit" (see below). (I can see charghwI' typing about 200
> >alternatives...)
> {lel} is "get out, take out".  It seems to refer to removing something
> from a container or holder or storage location.  It's not the same as
> {Haw'} "get out, flee" or {nargh} "escape".

bIlugh. I've already realized that I got the definition wrong.

> >Oh, you got me wrong here. With <qawHaqqoq> I meant "film". "so-called
> >memory banks" seemed to be intelligible.
> *I* didn't have a clue that you meant "film".

What did *you* think the sentence was to mean? How would you say "film"?

> >> > ray'qoq lucha'chu' navmeyvam. taDlaw' ray'qoqvam.
> >> > vaj janvaD <DoS taDmoHwI'> vIpong.
> >>
> >> maj. vallaw' pongvam. QaplaH je <jonmoHwI'>, <HotlhwI'> je, 'ach DaHjaj
> >> ponglIj vImaS. chaq wa'leS jaS jIwuq.
> >
> >QaplaHlaw' pongmey law', 'ach QaplaHchu' pagh (0) pong. *picture*
> >Delbogh mu''e' nunobchugh MO jIQuchqu'.
> We *do* have a word for "picture" -- but it's a verb: {cha'}.

<cha'> is useful in many cases, but not in all cases. I've used it
myself in my original post to describe "pictures"/"photos". Anyway, it
wasn't useful when I had to find a word I could use for "camera". If we
had a word for "picture" I would have said something like <"picture"
lIngwI'> or <"picture" lIngmeH jan> etc. Yet we don't have a noun for
"picture". So I had to give a rather long description of a camera first
before I could find a name for "camera". I used <DoS taDmoHwI'> but I
could also have used <qolotlh> and it would have been understood. (Just
think of the car "Christine"...)
Now you can argue that nevertheless I found a way to say what I wanted
to say and that I'm just a lazy person who needs one Klingon word for
each English word. Usually I'd reply that you were wrong, that I liked
recasting, that it was kind of fun, the nice little difference between
learning Klingon and a Terran language etc. However, a word for
"picture" still remains in one of the top positions on my wishlist for
new words. I just need it quite frequently. But I'll have to deal with
what we have, just as everyone else. 

> >Actually I meant fog. Maybe <'eng'a'Hey>?
> {SeS bIr} or {tlhuchHey yIQ} or {yav 'eng}?

I like <yav 'eng>. 


> -- ghunchu'wI'

Back to archive top level