tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Jul 11 12:17:37 2000

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

RE: Raise Your betleH to the Stars.....



quljIb:
>I been following this whole discussion, and I must say that to a begginer
>(me) the phrase <Hovmey lurgh> makes perfect sense for "to(ward) the
stars".

pagh: 
> I believe that your "beginner's sense" is missing something.  The word
> {lurgh} just means "direction", and does not necessarily imply "to" or
> "toward".  For the spatial meanings of "to" or "toward", {-Daq} has the
>  right meaning.

mu'tlheghvam vIghItlhbe' jIH. ghItlh ghunchu'wI'. 'ach jIQochbe'.

qeSan:
> . . .
>
> "I aim at a planet" can mean either, "in the direction of the planet I
> aim" or "On the planet I aim". However, "I aim for the planet" can mean
> only one thing.

quljIb:
> I'm well aware that this has not been established as canon (that's 
> why we all are having this lengthy discussion), but it seemed to 
> me rather unambiguious.

And when I hear <yuQvaD jIQeq>, I imagine a very patriotic Klingon raising
his phaser and firing at the enemies of his homeworld. The problem is that
<-vaD> is *NOT* the English word "for". The meanings of the two overlap
quite a bit, but they are not identical. I just can't make this meaning of
"for" work with <-vaD>.

It's not even unambiguous in English. Imagine a husband at a carnival being
offered a basketball and an opportunity to win a big teddy bear. Now imagine
a husband with a gun in his hand and his very angry wife staring murderously
at him with an axe raised over her head. The husband could be advised "shoot
for your wife" in either case, with *very* different meanings. Awkward, I
know, but all I could think of quickly.

quljIb:
> <<Hovmey lurghvaD betleHraj yIpep>> 'oH mu'tlhegh lurgh. 
> net Sov Hoch.

> What I meant to say:
> <<Hovmey lurgh(vaD) beteHraj yIpep>> 'oH mu'tlhegh.
> The <net Sov Hoch> was meant to convey "Everyone knows that!" 
> (I was being slightly sarcastic with that one.)

<net> is used when the subject of the verb which follows is indefinite, so
<Hoch> doesn't fit here. Use either just <net Sov> or <'e' Sov Hoch>.

ghunchu'wI':
> While the phrase in <<..>> marks is grammatically acceptable, I disagree
> completely with using {-vaD} here, and {betleHraj yIpep} is a bit odd.
> You're commanding whoever you're addressing to raise a single betleH which
> belongs to multiple people.  Saying either {betleHraj tIpep} or {betleHlIj
> yIpep} works better in my brain.

quljIb:
> *sigh*  "...Unlike English, however, the lack of specific suffix 
> for plural does not mean that the noun [i.e., <betleH>] is singular.
> In Klingon, a noun without  a plural suffix may still refer to more 
> than one entity.  The plurality is indicated by a pronoun, whether 
> a verb prefix or a full word, or by context."  If I'd wanted to 
> write <betleHlIj>, I'd have written <betleHlIj>.

Look at the quote you used: "plurality is indicated by a pronoun, whether a
verb prefix or a full word, ...". You have used a prefix - <yI-> - which
indicates a singular object. If you meant plural, then the proper prefix
would be <tI->, not. If you really did mean "All of you, raise your single,
collective betleH", then <betleHraj yIpep> is fine. Otherwise, it's
<betleHlIj tIpep>.


pagh
Beginners' Grammarian


Back to archive top level