tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Aug 05 12:23:37 2002
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: -lu' and -be', small aside on Paul Simon
tulwI' (Stephan):
>lab Voragh:
>>tulwI' (Stephan) wrote:
>>
>>>> 'u' SepmeyDaq Sovbe'lu'bogh lenglu'meH He ghoSlu'bogh retlhDaq 'oHtaH
>>>> It waits...on the edge of the galaxy, beside a passage to unknown
>>>> regions of
>>>> the universe... (SkyBox DS99)
>>>
>>>could anyone help me to parse this sentence?
>>>
>>>'u' SepmeyDaq Sovbe'lu'bogh lenglu'meH => in order that one travels to
>>>the regions of the universe that one doesn't know
>>
>>You have it right:
>>
>>'u' Sepmey Sovbe'lu'bogh = the universe's unknown regions ("regions which
>>one doesn't know")
>>
>>SepmeyDaq lunglu'meH = in order to travel to (the) regions
>>
>>>He ghoSlu'bogh = a route that one approaches
>>>retlhDaq 'oHtaH = it "waits" in the area beside
>>>
>>>it's not a sentence. what's wrong?
>>
>>It is a sentence, but you've broken it up in the wrong place:
>>
>> ... He ghoSlu'bogh retlhDaq 'oHtaH.
>> It is (located) next to ["at the area beside"] the route which proceeds...
>
>but why no /He ghoSbogh/ - "the route that proceeds"?
That would be {ghoSbogh He} if {He} is the subject of {ghoS}.
I should have translated it as: {He ghoSlu'bogh} "a route that one follows,
a route which is followed"
>what does /ghoS/ acutally mean? "to follow a route"?
{ghoS} is a general verb of motion with a variety of English glosses:
thrust, follow a course, proceed, come toward, approach, go to, etc.
>>Looking at examples of {tu'lu'} in canon, many people have noticed that
>>Klingons apparently drop {lu-} colloquially. Qov has called this "the
>>Klingon version of 'whom'." In (North American) English, most people use
>>the word "who" as the direct object of a verb when formally they should
>>be using "whom", much like most Klingons say {tu'lu'} when they should be
>>saying {lutu'lu'}. BTW, this usage was confirmed by Okrand at qep'a'
>>loSDIch, who was quite taken with her idea. He later expanded and
>>explained it in some detail in KGT in the section called "Common Errors:
>>The Case of {lu-}" (pp. 168-172).
>
>i remember that i have read this in a book called "the language instinct".
>one of your former presidents had to decide between two slogans: "whom you
>gonna vote" and "who you gonna vote". something like that.
I've never heard this anecdote, but the two choices would more likely have
been the very formal, upper-class "for whom are you going to vote?" vs. the
folksy, democratic "who you gonna vote for?".
--
Voragh
Ca'Non Master of the Klingons