tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Jul 09 21:46:15 1999

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: Crusade

I've let this sit a while, and I think I'm calm enough to answer it now.

>ghobe'.  ratlh 'op poHwIj vaj natlhlu'be'.  reHmeH poHwIj vIQorgh neH.

ja' peHruS:
>Once I deliberately wrote a message misusing Klingon words just as a beginner
>might have found them in the dictionary without bothering to "feel" out their
>real meanings and usages.  It was to show how not to learn Klingon.

It was an impressive job of intentionally wrong word choices.  Perhaps in
another couple of years I'll find it amusing.

>I get
>the feeling that ghunchu'wI' is seriously misusing {ratlh}, {natlh} and
>{Qorgh}----and I cannot discern any smiley faces to indicate that ghunchu'wI'
>is joking!

I'm not joking.  Perhaps they're not perfect words, but I don't see anything
wrong with the way I've used them.  For a quick explanation of why I chose
the term {lo'} instead of {natlh}, I think they're quite adequate.

>Furthermore, what is {vaj} doing in a sentence without a
>dependent clause.

{vaj} is an adverbial, like {nom} or {ghaytan}.  It works fine in a sentence
with no dependent clauses, as in {vaj Daleghpu''a'} "Then you have seen it?"
(Spoken by Kruge to Valkris about the Genesis data, just before he tells
her {Do'Ha'} and blasts her ship into rubble.)

>I cannot fathom that {vaj} is the noun {warriorship} here.

I do not quite understand your use of the terms "fathom" and "warriorship".

> I'll not go deeply into the "passive voice" portrayed by affixing {-lu'} to
>{natlh} while Klingon does not actually have a passive.

I don't even know what you're referring to here.  My sentence is easily
translated "thus someone/something does not deplete it."  Any portrayal
of "passive voice" is in the mind of the translator, not in the sentence

>Okay.  {ratlh} means "remain, stay behind."...

Where do you get the "stay behind" meaning?  TKD just says "remain".  It
seems appropriate for describing something that is still there, the way
some of my time is.  Are you trying to interpret it in a strictly spatial
sense?  If so, why?

>  {natlh}
>means "expend, use up, deplete."  It is a transitive verb, not a descriptive
>verb.  It does not mean "used up."

That's why I didn't write {natlhbe' poHwIj}.  I wrote {natlhlu'be'}.  The
object is not stated, but the only noun anywhere in my message is {poHwIj}
and I expect most people would recognize it as the only candidate for what
no indefinite someone/something is depleting.

>Thus, with some of ghunchu'wI's time
>{chuvtaH}, his time may be in the process of {natlh} but not yet {loj}.

I don't follow you at all, sorry.  Things are not "using up" or "depleting"
my time.  I do not permit my chores to become that obtrusive.  If they
threaten to "expend" my time, I refuse to take on any more of them.  They
merely "use" my time.  Which is exactly what I was explaining, using the
words that you're complaining about.  If you start with the assumption that
what I wrote isn't what I meant, then I can see why you don't think I used
the right words.  But why don't you accept that I'm writing what I mean,
and that my words are the right ones to express my meaning?

You suggested that {lo'} was inferior to {natlh}.  I explained exactly why
I thought {natlh} was inappropriate.  Your discussion tells me you still
think I meant {natlh}.  Maybe *you* would say {natlh} here, but I wouldn't
and didn't and won't.

>Where does {Qorgh} (take care of) get the meaning "guard one's time"
>vis-a-vis "care for a person, maybe because that person is ill"?  From
>English, perhaps?  Klingon is NOT English!!!

I'm using it with the meaning "take care of", exactly as I see it in TKD.
I care for my time.  I do not permit my time to be filled with work; I
reserve some of it for play.  Where do *you* find the meaning "care for
a person, maybe because that person is ill"?  The closest I can come to
a verb with that meaning is {rach}.

>Next I'll be hearing that {Qorgh} can mean "care for [somebody
>romantically]."  wejpuH!

Apparently you haven't been reading what charghwI' has to say on that
topic.  We aren't likely to be debating romantic love for a while. :-)

-- ghunchu'wI'

Back to archive top level