tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Apr 17 12:16:29 2002

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: to' nech, 051-061

From: "Sean M. Burke" <>
> At 08:42 2002-04-17 -0400, David Trimboli wrote:
> > > K: yI'uchchu'!
> > > Gloss: Grab it!
> >How about:
> >nom yIwoH!
> Yes, woH is much better.  And the more I think about it, 'uchchu' makes me
> think of what you do to a rope in a game of tug-of-war, instead of just
> reaching out and grabbing something to get the feel of it.

/-chu'/ needn't imply forcefulness.  /'uchchu'/, aside from being a
palindrome, would be useful to describe when someone is holding something
such that it can't be dropped, taken away, or whatever, according to the

> > > K: beqvaD jo' yIlan.
> > > Gloss: Replace a crewman with a machine.
> > > [I'm unsure of the choice of verb, and of the argument structure.]
> >
> >I like the Klingon sentence here; it has a slightly different feel, but
> >seems to come out to the same thing as the gloss ultimately.
> >
> >Without context, it's a little vague.  It's unclear whether the
> >(beq) actually benefits from the action, or is affected by it, or what.
> Exactly what I was worrying about.  On the one hand, I want "-vaD" to
> signal who's actually being given something (in which case you could read
> the above as something like "set him up with new equipment", altho that
> is hardly a bad idea).  And on the other hand, I think of "-vaD" as a
> serving, in a pinch, as a sort of "general particle for tagging the third
> argument of a verb".

Well then how about this (clipped):

beq teq; cho' jo'.


But more seriously,

beq yIteq; jo' yIchel.

Stardate 2293.4

Back to archive top level