tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Sep 22 06:42:53 2000
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: tKLBC moHaq Dup
> you miss my point: I don't believe Marc Okrand made a conscious
> choice to use the English construction for his language. It looks just
> like an accidental copy. If he had chosen from the beginning to copy
> this particular feature of English grammar, I'd have expected it to be
> mentioned, at least in the Addendum in the section about "indirect
> objects" (6.8., TKD, p. 180).
I did not miss your point. I might tend to agree, but considering the
quantity of other forms and words in Klingon which Okrand did not
explain in TKD, I have no assurance that he would have mentioned
this in TKD. One is on shaky ground when one says "I don't believe
that person-X intended thus-and-so" unless one has spoken with
person-X about it.
> so what? did the inventor(s) of this language intend this word
> to have both meanings? or is it (also) just a side effect of their
> being native speakers of English?
In this case, I know for a fact that this was a side-effect of the
creator being a native speaker of English because I talked with
her about it. There is an alternate from which some choose to use
for "ib". Like "ib" in Laadan, one may personally choose to use
moHaq Dup in Klingon or choose another form.
moHaq Dupvam DamuSbej. yilo'Qo'. Dupvam DaHoHlaHbe'.