tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Oct 24 08:48:04 2001

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

Re: KLBC qun



> > >   "Warriors live in the present, civilization (Empire, or
> > >    Citizens(?)) goes on into the future."
> 
> > :   yInlI' SuvwI'pu', taHtaH tayqeq.
> > :
> > : Or to make a better connection in the comparison, use the same root verb.
> > :
> > :   taHlI' SuvwI'pu', taHtaH tayqeq.
> 
> I'm not familiar with the construction: tayqeq
> Please help me with this, as a vocabulary word, and in context.

tayqeq - civilization (TKD)


> Voragh ja':
> > Alternatively, use contrasting adverbials:
> >
> >   DaH yInlI' SuvwI'pu', reH taHtaH tayqeq.
> >
> > As Klingon verbs have no grammatical tense, using adverbs of time
> can help. 

The english doesn't use tense either.  The statement can be said at any point 
in time.  Warriors have yInlI' in the past, they will yInlI' in the future.  
There's not supposed to be tense, only aspect.  Adding the adverbs isn't wrong, 
I just think DaH is too restrictive.


> > A possible caveat: Since Klingon time words are more specific than
> their English
> > equivalents - e.g. {wa'Hu'} "tomorrow" (lit. "one day from now") -
> Klingons may
> > not use them metaphorically: e.g. the car of tomorrow, yesterday's
> child.  We
> > need to ask Maltz.
> 
> jIyaj (DaH)
> 
> If that is true, then perhaps I SHOULD just say:
> "Today is what a Warrior lives for. Tommorrow the Empire endures."
> 
> DaHjaj yInlI' SuvwI'pu'. wa'leS taHjaj wo'

Because klingon might NOT use today/tomorrow metaphorically, this could mean 
that we are all going to die today.

yInlI' (or taHlI'), without the DaH or DaHjaj, suggests that the warrior, tho 
currently living, will eventually die.  taHtaH implies that the 
empire/civilization will continuously endure.  I don't think it needs anything 
else.  That warrior in the sentence, what will he be doing tomorrow?

Note:  You wrote  wa'leS taHjaj wo' "Tomorrow, may the empire endure."  Do you 
want -jaj on there?

 
> DaHjaj yInlI' vaj (?)

vaj is warriors in the general sense; not a specific warrior.  So this would 
imply that in the future there will be NO warriors.  The whole sense 
of "warrior" will die off.  I believe the english says that each individual 
warrior dies.  In twenty years there will still be warriors; they will be 
different warriors, the sons of today's warriors; and they too will eventually 
die.  But all along, the empire/civilization will continue to endure.  Looking 
at these english words here, you can see how I chose my klingon words and 
suffixes.

 
> Something like: "Warriors live for the moment, the Empire endures
> into the future!"
> Even if it isn't metaphorical, It has been said very well in our
> anthem; DaHjaj wo'
> .... but which statement comes before that?

Huh?  DaHjaj wo'?  What comes before?
Do you mean taHjaj wo'?  It's the first line of the anthem, nothing comes 
before it.

 
> Would it be possible to use {vaj} instead of {SuvwI'pu'}?
> Implying "warriorhood" instead of just "warriors." Can such a thing
> "live"?

I explained vaj and SuvwI'.  As far as vaj living, using taH not only matches 
both verbs, but it also does work with vaj.  Using yIn would be up for debate 
until MO tells us.


> It still doesn't seem to give the impression that Warriors exist just
> in the moment, and the Empire exists for the rest of existence. I
> don't get that Zen feel from any of the above. 

I think [ taHlI' SuvwI'pu', taHtaH wo' ] does do just that.


DloraH, BG


Back to archive top level