tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Feb 11 20:56:10 2001
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: chay' cha' qech lumughlu'?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected]
> [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2001 6:26 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: chay' cha' qech lumughlu'?
>
>
> >I must say this is decidedly the least Klingon thing I've
> translated in a
> >very long time. Wittering, vague, indecisive and downright
> philosophically
> >whiny. Any warrior to utter this would be quickly cleansed from the gene
> >pool. The mystery surrounding his death would be quickly solved
> by removing
>
> >all sense of abstract from his death, which would be swiftly made real.
>
> HItIchbe'. {tlhIngan SuvwI'} vIQujbe'qu'. jIHvaD Hol Daj neH. 'ach novna'
> Hol 'oHbe' tlhIngan Hol. ngoDvam vISovchu'. DaH mayajchuq'a'?
HIja'. qatIch vIneHbe'. jIqIDqang neH. tlhIngan Hol vIqeltaHvIS tlhaQ
qechlIj 'e' vIHar. yInuQqangbe'lu'.
> > I came up with:
> > 1. {DIch mobchu' oHtaHvIS Hegh 'ej Hegh poH vISovlaHbe'chu'vIS vaj chay'
> > jIvangnISneS?}
>
> >You cannot use the verb suffix {-chu'} on a verb while it is being used
> >adjectivally. For that, you are limited to {-qu'}, {-be'} and {-Ha'}, so
>
> jIyajchoH.
maj.
> >pIq jIHeghbejmo' 'ach HeghwIj wanI' vISovbe'chu'mo' jImIS. chay'
> jIvangnIS?
>
> wot {-mo'} je lumuvlu''a'?
HIja'. *TKD Addendum* yIHaD.
nav wa'vatlh SochmaH vagh yISam.
> Qapbe' {jImIS}. chaq Qap {DuH QaQ jInej}.
chaq Qap {DuH QaQ vInej}. chaq {batlhwIj vIDub vIneH}.
> > 2. {SovtaHghach SovlaH'a' SovwI'?}
>
> >"Can the knower know the continuation of knowing?"
>
> >ngoD vISovlaH. wa' wanI' 'oH. ngoDvam vISov 'e' vISovlaH. latlh
> wanI' 'oH.
> >quqlaH'a' cha' wanI'vam?
>
> >Isn't that really what the philosophical question is asking?
>
> qechvamvaD maQochbe'law'.
maj.
> nejwI'
SarrIS