tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Mar 15 17:11:31 2000
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: KLBC: jInIDqa'
- From: "Andeen, Eric" <[email protected]>
- Subject: RE: KLBC: jInIDqa'
- Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 18:13:31 -0700
jalth Eodrakken:
>>> QublaH Ha'DIbaHmeyvam 'ach jatlhlaHbe'.
jIjang. jIjatlh:
>> QublaH Ha'DIbaHmeyvam chay' net 'ollaH?
> ghotpu' 'ollaHbe'.
OVS - 'ollaHbe' ghotpu'.
> Sovbe' chaH.
> jatlhlaHbe' Ha'DIbaHmey mu'mey
> chenmoHlaHbe' neH nujchajmo'.
This is correct, but a bit awkward. You might want to try something with
<QIch>, like <QIch lInglaHbe'>.
> QublaH 'e' vISov lut vIja'mo'. :>
vaj ngoD vIlajchu'.
> On a similar note, I'm not clear on whether I should be
> using <<chaH>> or <<bIH>> for these creatures. Is the
> distinction really made by language use, or is that just
> a way of referring to sentience? Would a group of human
> babies or human mutes be called <<bIH>>? Would a
> group of gorillas who spoke sign language be called
> <<chaH>>?
Human babies or mutes are <chaH>, and animals, even those capable of limited
speech, are <bIH>. The "beings capable of using language" pronouns and
suffixes basically apply to "people" and their alien equivalents. This is
actually fairly easy for Star Trek, since the vast majority of aliens are
humanoid and have roughly the same mental and physical attributes as humans,
and usually a similar level of technology. The differences are usually on
the order of a bumpy forehead or a weird hairdo.
Okrand has specifically said that these pronouns and suffixes do not apply
to computers or animals, no matter how clever they seem to be. I am sure
there is probably occasional confusion and debate among Klingon
xenobiologists or computer researchers about whether the latest discovery is
an <'oH> or a <ghaH>, but the average Klingon rarely needs to make this
distinction, if ever.
pagh
Beginners' Grammarian
tlhIngan Hol Mailing List FAQ
http://www.bigfoot.com/~dspeers/klingon/faq.htm