tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Jul 29 16:51:07 1999

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: tuQHa' vs tuQbe'

jatlh HomDoq:

>> >to me {tuQ} means "an_haben_" as opposed to "an_ziehen_"
>> >which is {tuQ('egh)moH}, and I really don't see how
>> >there can be an opposite to that (other than just {tuQbe'})
>mujang HovqIj; jatlh:
>> Think of {tuQ} as "_an_gezogen haben", then {tuQbe'} would be "_nicht
>> an_gezogen haben", and you could translate {tuQHa'} with "_aus_gezogen
>> haben".
>cha' Dosmey DIqIpba'. qay'be'. maQoch neH...
>"angezogen haben" vImughmeH, <<tuQ'eghmoHta'>> vIlo'.
>"ausgezogen haben" vImughmeH, <<tuQHa'eghmoHta'>> vIlo'.

DoSwIjvo' Sumba' DoSlIj...
Don't think of "ausgezogen haben" as an action, but a state. So you don't
need the {-'eghmoHta'} part. And what remains is {tuQHa'} - a word you can't
translate exactly into German and even less into English. But I still think
it's possible. Just because you can't find an exact equivalent in
English/German, that doesn't mean the word doesn't exist in Klingon.

>> And "ausgezogen haben" seems to be appropriate when talking about
>> at a strip bar.
>quite so
>                                           Marc Ruehlaender
>                                           aka HomDoq


Back to archive top level