tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Feb 15 10:47:53 2000

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: 'Ij and qIm

I really hate ST5.

It's not just that it includes transitive use of {'Ij} and 
{qIm}, which we frankly didn't need. It is that it does 
this amid such a high density of errors. I just found 
another one:

nImbuS wej maghoS, He yInab.

Okrand has explicitly stated that the use of a noun as a 
location without the addition of {-Daq} requires a 
transitive prefix on {ghoS}. If the prefix is transitive, 
the noun may use {-Daq} or not, but if the prefix is 
intransitive, the noun MUST have {-Daq} on it. There are 
three explicit restatements of this for {ghoS}-like verbs 
in the interview in HolQeD v7n4p8-9:

"You cannot say {bIQtIq jIjaH."

"This is not okay: {yuQ jIleng}"

"But {Duj jIpaw} strikes me as odd."

Another weirdness:

"Enterprise?" {'entepray''a'?}

So, does this mean we can put verb suffixes on nouns? Would 
that just be for proper nouns, or can we do that for all 
nouns?

I really wish ST5 had never happened.

There's also an incredibly interesting casting there. 
Brilliantly weird:

"Our Empire's highest bounty has been placed on his head."

jonlu'meH wo'maj pop tIn law' Hoch tIn puS.

Literally: "Our empire's in-order-that-he-is-captured 
reward is the biggest." I would have been proud of coming 
up with something that strange, yet accurately expressive.

Another oddness:

qIbDaq SuvwI'e' SoH Dun law' Hoch Dun puS.

This appears to be one of those examples I've been looking 
for where {-'e'} is truely appended to a noun which is 
neither subject nor object of the sentence. It is merely 
the topic. "As for soldiers, you would be the most 
wonderful in the galaxy." While I definitely see this as 
valid, it seems like it would have been simpler to say:

qIbDaq SoH Dun law' Hoch SuvwI' Dun puS.

But then, he didn't ask me, right?

And in the example {nom yIghoSqu'.} Is that the "thrust" 
meaning of this verb, or the "approach" meaning of this 
verb? We'll likely never know.

I also wonder about:

chorghSaD qelI'qam HIvchuq 'e' vInoH.

"Estimating attack range in 8,000 kellicams."

Is that a typo such that the {'e'} should not be there at 
all, or should it be a noun suffix on HIvchuq, which is a 
new noun similar to HIvDuj, or is it somehow clipped for 
{maHIvchuq} and the English translation is a bit loose? 
What exactly is going on here?

Also, {veH tIn} is listed in the Addendum as "the Great 
Barrier", but in the script, it is given as one word 
{veHtIn}. Is this a new word or not?

And how, exactly, is one to pronounce the name that is 
spelled in Klingon as {tlh'a'}?

Then, there's:

petIv'egh. qara'qu'.

Why does he give a command to plural second person and then 
state that it is an order to just one? I'd expect 
{Sara'qu'}.

I honestly believe that ST3 was made at a time when Okrand 
was new with the language, but he was very careful and 
effective. ST5 was made when enough time had passed that he 
had forgotten a lot and was not quite focussed on the 
language yet and most things since then have been written 
after he decided to start taking the language seriously and 
actually write well formed sentences... I really think ST5 
was a low point in his effective canon.

Just like the movie as a whole. It was, without 
competition, the worst of the entire series of Star Trek 
movies. If it were a TOS episode, it would have been the 
one about the aliens who stole Spock's brain.

But, like an abrasive uncle, this one is still part of the 
family, no matter how much we'd like to disown it.

wejpuH.

Gee. I wish we had great scripts like this for the GOOD 
movies instead of trying to guess what the hell that 
general was saying when he spread out the map in front of 
whats-her-name. I STILL think it sounds like "wawa wawa 
wawa."

charghwI'

On Tue, 15 Feb 2000 00:42:43 -0500 David Trimboli 
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Me too.  Especially since we also have /Qoy/ and /buS/.  In fact, I recall
> that somewhere (THE KLINGON WAY I think, but I'm not sure) Okrand mentions
> that /Qoy/ is preferable in a particular sentence than /'Ij/.  He talks
> about how hearing is better than listening, or thereabouts, rather than
> transitivity, but I was hoping that it was a sneaky way to get one to choose
> /Qoy/ in that transitive sentence rather than /'Ij/.  The hearing/listening
> part seems backwards, anyway.
> 
> But, alas, it isn't so.  Unless we are told otherwise, I believe the Star
> Trek V script excerpts are proof that /'Ij/ and /qIm/ are allowed to be used
> with objects.
> 
> SuStel
> Stardate 123.9
> 
> P.S.: Anyone else upset that we didn't get to see the word for "scope" and
> the line "Alter the attack course!" in the excerpts?
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Andeen, Eric <[email protected]>
> To: <[email protected]>
> Sent: Monday, February 14, 2000 9:07 PM
> Subject: RE: KLBC <chyrano berjeraq>
> 
> 
> > Qu'vatlh ghay'cha' baQa'. HolQeDvetlh vIlIjpu'. I had it floating around
> in
> > the back of my mind that we found out recently that <qIm> was transitive,
> > but I could not remember where. I also forgot that <'Ij> was included as
> > well - probably because I was ambivalent about <qIm>, but I really *liked*
> > the idea of <'Ij> as intransitive. Oh, well.

Back to archive top level