tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Nov 07 13:15:47 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: Undoubtedly continue to..
>From: "Andeen, Eric" <[email protected]>
>Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1999 15:17:47 -0700
>
>jatlh ~mark:
>
>> I have to admit that I still do want to be able to
>> say {verenganmo' HoD vIHoHbe'} to mean "It wasn't
>> because of the Ferengi that I killed that captain
>> (though I did, in fact, kill him)"... PROVIDED the
>> context is present. The audience would have to
>> know that I really did (or did not) kill the
>> captain and the -mo' phrase would then be
>> supplying the reason why I did (or did not).
>
>Wow. I know this is a parallel of the <batlh bIHeghbe'>, but even with the
>right context, my reaction to this would be <'ach HoD DaHoHbej! qatlh
>verengan Dogh Daqel jay'?>. I would have to say something like <HoD
>muHoHmoHbe' verengan>.
You'd be surprised what the right inflection can give you. Try it in
person, with the right stress, and volumes can be disambiguated.
But that's neither here nor there, and a is lousy plan to base your
language on. Still, *spoken* language, any language, breaks a buttload of
rules that the formal language would prescribe.
*Sigh*... I suppose I shouldn't meantion {be'nalwI' vIbelmoHmeH HoD
vIHoHbe'} for "I didn't kill the captain to please my wife" (WITH the
possible meaning of "...I killed him to advance my standing" or "...I
killed him to please my father."). I suppose these could work provided one
had the explanatory sentences there too. Or maybe not then.
><batlh bIHeghbe'> is an isolated example, and I like to be very careful in
>extrapolating from it. Perhaps <batlh Hegh> is a special Klingon sentiment
>that gets thought of as atomic, while other combinations like <batlh vang>
>do not. Since this phrase likely came about at a holiday meal, perhaps the
>speaker was a wee bit inebriated and made a boo boo, which we continue to
>use because it is tradition.
There is that; it's too easy to extrapolate from single examples.
~mark