tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Jan 31 14:35:17 2000

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: KliFlash [Was: Re: tlhIngan Hol pojwI' 2.0]

On Sat, 29 Jan 2000 20:29:37 -0500 (EST) qenobIywan 
<[email protected]> wrote:
> If I understand what I read in HolQeD 8:3, then what you need to do is
> add some sort of word that specifies how much time ago. Without that it
> just sounds like you're saying "Ago, he abandoned his post," which just
> doesn't work.
> 
> We know how it works with years:
> 
> DIS puS  (a few years)
> ben puS  (a few years ago)
> nem puS  (a few years from now)

You make a strong statement without much backing. Okrand 
has never used it like this, and given the audio tapes 
telling us, "A Klingon may be inaccurate, but he is NEVER 
approximate!" I honestly believe that these interpretations 
are stretches of what we know. In proverbs, exact numbers 
are given where humans would approximate:

loSSaD Hugh SIjlaH qetbogh loD.

Four thousand throats can be cut by a running man.

On this list, many of us use {puS} and {law} as you 
describe, but I honestly think it is a stretch to do so and 
I'm even MORE cautious about making assumptions that reach 
even farther out based on the assumed correctness of these 
constructions.
 
> And here's how I think it works with an unspecified time period:
> 
> poH ngaj  (a short period of time)
> ret ngaj  (a short time ago)
> pIq ngaj (a short time from now)
> 
> or:
> 
> poH nI'  (a long period of time)
> ret nI'  (a long time ago)
> pIq nI'  (a long time from now)

This is an interesting idea. Meanwhile, you are completely 
making this up. I like this better than using {law'} and 
{puS} for this. Maybe it works. Or maybe Klingon culture 
dictates that you give a more precise (even if inaccurate) 
indication of the time. After all, who would walk up to a 
Klingon and say, "Excuse me, but it wasn't two weeks ago. 
It was 15 days ago." The next sound would be that 
accompanying evisceration. You can be inaccurate. Just 
don't be vague.

So IF BEING VAGUE IS OKAY, then what you propose is 
probably fine. Meanwhile, I don't know that being vague is 
okay. I'd say that you are making a good suggestion for a 
human speaking to a human using the Klingon language. I 
wouldn't make the stretch to say that it is something that 
any Klingon would ever say.

> I would think that you would know whether what you are talking about was
> a long time ago or a short time ago, so this should be sufficient. If
> not, then I would probably just use {-pu'} or maybe {-ta'}. Otherwise I
> think {'op} (an unspecified quantity) would work -- I just don't know
> exactly how to use {'op}.

You only use it when giving a number is not signficant to 
what you wish to say.
 
> Just my penny and a half's worth... :P

And just my two cents of response.

> ---
> 
> reH taHjaj tlhIngan Hol...
> 
> Qapla'
> 
> qenobIywan
 
charghwI'

Back to archive top level