tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Jan 20 13:50:55 1999

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: KLBC: *London*Daq lengwIj

In article <CBD6795F70A5D211B2B20008C733321A031C8B@INFINITI2>, Andeen,
Eric <> writes
>lab Matt Johnson:

>> <*London*Daq lengwIj>
>Since this is a title, it does not need to be a complete sentence, but I
>don't generally like to put a locative in front of another noun. It's a
>matter of personal style, but I think <*London* lengwIj> would work better.

Ok... qay'be'.

>> wa'Hu' *London* vISuch.
>> veng'a' 'oH 'e' Har Humanpu' 'a {veng wa'DIch} tIn law' 
>> *London* tIn puS. 
>teH'a' ngoDvam? vI'ollaHbe'.

ngoDvam vI'ollaHbe' je. ;-) *writer's licence <g>*

>> Dochmey vIlegh 'e' vIQIj.
>This doesn't quite work. You are saying "I will explain *that* I saw
>things". If you want to explain the things you saw, you need to say <Dochmey
>vIleghbogh vIQIj>. I also think of <Doch> as meaning tangible, physical
>things, and I'm not sure if it can stretch the way you want it to. <Daq>
>might be better.

Forgot about the '-bogh' clause. :-) 

{Daqmey vIleghbogh vIQIj.}

>> vergh vIghoSmeH lupDujHomwIj vIpuv.
>I don't think this use of <puv> works. In English, things like "the stick
>broke" and "the stick broke the cup" are common, but in Klingon, they are
>(as far as we know) rare. Klingon has the suffix <-moH> for the second case.
>So if you want to "fly" your shuttle, the best word is probably <puvmoH>
>rather than <puv>. Also consider <chIj>, etc.

'ay'Daq veb {chIj} vIlo' 'e' vInab. ;-)

>Also, as a style note, <verghDaq ...> is simpler than <vergh vIghoSmeH ...>,
>and I think it works a little better. It's up to you.

{verghDaq lupDujHomwIj vIpuvmoH.}

>> muyu' 'avwI'. rInDI' ghIghDaj, jItaHlaH.
>> veng botlhDaq lupDujHomwIj vIpuv vIneH,  'a 
>> tuchchu' 'avwI'. [??]
>maj. A lot of the writing syle is different from what I would have chosen,
>but it is all correct. If we didn't have different writing styles, what
>would be the point of writing at all?

:-) DIvI' HolDaq jatlh nuvmey law'.

>> *London*Daq, langmo' Hemey naw', mayItnIS pagh 
>> lupDujHomHom wIghajnIS pagh raQpo' Dujmey wItIjnIS.
>I have no idea what you mean by <naw'> here. . . Looking at your
>translation, I see that you meant "access" as an adjective as in "access
>streets". I really don't think it can be used this way. Consider <naw'meH
>Hemey>, or just leave it off entirely.

Since {Hem} is "route", I wanted to sort-of specify it a little more for
a street... {naw'meH Hemey} is certainly better, but if you think the
notion of 'street' is suitably imparted by {Hem}... I'll drop it
altogether. <G>

{*London*Daq, langmo' Hemey, ....}


Possibly Complicated Question: If a noun already 'seems' to have a
diminutive suffix tacked onto it (like {lupDujHom} for shuttlecraft),
are we okay to put another {-Hom} on it, like I have above? I also get
into semantic questions between:

tlhIngan Hol:           {lupDujHom'a'} 
{lupDujHom} as root:    large shuttlecraft
{*lupDuj*} as root:     'significantly'-small *lupDuj*
                        very-small *lupDuj*

tlhIngan Hol:           {lupDujHomHom}
{lupDujHom} as root:    small shuttlecraft
{*lupDuj*} as root:     'insignificantly'-small *lupDuj* 
                        tiny-small *lupDuj*

I know *lupDuj* doesn't exist as a root-word yet... but humor me. <G> 

It's logic where proportion is concerned -- trying to tack {-Hom} /
{'a'} suffices onto {HochHom} strikes me as being very mind-bending.


>> jIbelHa'qu', 'a muQeHmoHbe'.
>I think just plain <jIQeHbe'> would be better.

*nod* Ok. 

>> lupDujHomwIj vIngaQmoH. veng botlhDaq jIjaHmeH, 
>> raQpo' Duj vItIj.
>> muropmoH leng. vItIv. 'ach Humanpu' puj yIvmoH leng.
>bIrop 'e' DatIv'a'? taQ.

*Hee-hee. <G>* I wanted to get the idea of 'discomfort': "I found the
journey uncomfortable. It was worthy of a Klingon." ;-), but there
doesn't seem to be a suitable word without seeming contradictory.

>This use of <yIv> really donesn't work. To start with, it should be just
>plain <yIv>, not <yIvmoH> - the humans are "being chewed", not "being caused
>to chew". Second, <yIv> only works in this slang sense when the thing doing
>the annoying is a *person*. Just use the normal word for "annoy": <'ach
>Humanpu' puj nuQ leng>.

HIvqa' veqlargh! {yIv} didn't get marked with my slang indicator in my
lexicon, which is why I didn't pay attention.

I'll go with {'ach Humanpu' puj nuQ leng.}

Matt Johnson <>

Back to archive top level