tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Jul 02 22:41:38 1999

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: jIchegh tulajchugh

Alan Anderson wrote:

> jIja'pu':
> >lu'.  jIngaj.  mu' mach vIlo'.  pagh mojaq vIchel.
> ja' peHruS:
> >Does {jIngaj} mean "I'll be brief," or "I'll be short (as in using only short
> >words)?"  I can't figure this one out, ghunchuwI'.  {ngaj} refers to "short
> >duration of time," stative verb.  Thus, I have to think that you are
> >attempting to take on the persona of time.  jImISqu.  yIQIj.
> qay' nuq?  Since you correctly understand the word {ngaj} as referring to
> time, I assume you would understand {jIngaj} as "I'll be brief" instead of
> "I'll be short (in physical distance)."  Thus I really have no idea what is
> confusing you, and I have no idea what you want me to explain.  Whatever it
> is that keeps us from communicating appears still to be in place.
> -- ghunchu'wI'

Actually, this would've stumped me too.  It's not you that will be short it's your
sentences, comments, or explanations (whatever you were talking about).  It's
probably fine to say {jIngaj} but, at this point in time, I wouldn't use it and I
can't talk myself into agreeing with it.  I've been told plenty of times that I'm
not specific enough in my Klingon and so I've been trying to be cautious how I
word things.  If I were intending to say that my sentences would be short then I
would say {ngaj mu'tlheghmeywIj}.  I can understand why you said it the way you
did and I understand the components of the sentence but I would've struggled with
the translation if you said it to me (and by the way I know you weren't talking to
me and I don't mean to offend by intruding).  This isn't as crystal clear as you
think, at least not to some people.  I rarely agree with peHruS but on this point
I'd have to second the vote.


Back to archive top level