tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Jan 27 07:11:28 1999

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: Klingon in the News

ja' peHruS:
>I am not the person who started using {Da} for acting, mime, playing roles.  I
>don't know who started using {Da} this way, but I recall seeing it several

I've seen {DawI'} for "actor", and it makes sense that way.  "One who 
acts [like someone or something]" is a fine way to express the idea.
But in your {gholpu' luDa DawI'pu'}, you tried to use {Da} to mean 
"act in" or "act out" instead of "act like".  If I wanted to translate
it using the words "playing roles", it would have to be something like
"play the role of".

You of all people should have learned by now the importance of knowing
where novel word usages come from.  It seems to me that you tend to
associate certain English translations with Klingon words and phrases,
but you neglect the context that ties the meanings together.  When you
try to use those Klingon words later in another context, the intended
meaning is at best obscure.  And when you use them *without* context, 
there's no way to tell what you mean.

>As to interpretations of TKD glosses, we are doing our best "individual"
>interpretations until MO uses the words in sentences.  I often feel some the
>so-called experts of KLI have some truly weird interpretations.

I generally try to interpret the words in ways consistent with how 
they are defined in TKD.  Sometimes my understanding of the definition
differs from others' -- the verb {tlhuch} "exhaust" is a prime example
of an ambiguously defined term.  Does it mean "use up" or does it mean
"emit waste"?  Does the verb {choH} "change" mean "make different" or
"become different"?  Is {pIp} "spine" a backbone or something sharp? 
Does {tlhe'} "turn" change the orientation of the subject or object?
Those questions are not entirely settled, and no amount of argument or
debate can settle them without more examples of usage.

But when I mention the unusual interpretations I've seen from you on
occasion, I'm talking about something else entirely.  You once claimed
that {pIn'a'} meant "boss" as opposed to {pIn} "foreman", but TKD says
{pIn} = "boss" and the word "foreman" is nowhere to be found.  You
suggested recently that {lan} "put, place" means "put down", but 
that's what we have {roQ} for.  Your comment about {woH} "pick up" and
{jotlh} "take down" being the same thing but in different directions 
was reasonable as a theory, but you treated it as a well-accepted fact
and tried to use it in an explanation of grammar.  {maqwI' ghom} for 
"broadcast corporation" is so far from obvious that I can't begin to
fathom why you'd even have tried it.  And I don't think anyone *ever*
figured out what you meant by {'uywI' beQwI'}...

You're *so close* to being completely understandable when you write in
Klingon, peHruS.  With the occasional error or simple typo that hits 
almost everyone, your grammar is fine.  But your choice of words is 
often oddly skewed from what I would understand, apparently based on a
chain of reasoning that is not shared by the reader.

-- ghunchu'wI'

Back to archive top level