tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Jan 20 16:57:56 1999

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

RE: KLBC: *London*Daq lengwIj

jatlh Matt 

>>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'.

<DIvI' HolDaq> does not work for "in English". You need something like
<DIvI' Hol lulo'taHvIS ...>.

>>> *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, ....}

I think in this context, the "road" meaning is obvious. And it's just <He>,
but you knew that {{:-)



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.



Many of the entries in the dictionary are just there to make it easier to
look things up. TKD has an entry for "teach" - <ghojmoH>. This doesn't mean
<ghojmoH> is a separate word, unrelated to <ghoj> - just that if you're
looking for "teach", you probably won't immediately think of "cause to
learn". In general, unless the definition disagrees, you should treat
entries which look like compound nouns, nouns plus suffixes, or verbs plus
suffixes as conveniences rather than separate words.

So to answer your question, no, you can't put another type 1 suffix on
<lupDujHom> or <van'a'> or anything similar.

>>> 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.

The closest we have to "discomfort" is the phrase <loQ 'oy'DI' SuvwI'
bepbe'>, which is translated as "A warrior does not complain about physical
discomfort" in TKW (p. 46). We also have "pleasure is nonessential" -
<'utbe' bel>. See what else you can come up with...

Beginners' Grammarian

Back to archive top level