tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Jan 09 11:17:47 2002
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Is this valid Klingon?
- From: Qov <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: Re: Is this valid Klingon?
- Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2002 08:20:36 -0800
laSvarghHomchajDaq pIwvetlh ngoy' net Qub
Mostly, with one controversy.
laSvarghHomchajDaq = noun + N1 + N4 + N5 = location of the action
pIwvetlh = noun + N4 = object of the first phrase
ngoy' = verb with null prefix
net => makes the previous phrase the object of the next, with an indefinite
Qub = verb
The controversy is that we have no evidence from the definition or use that
ngoy' is transitive. To be safe, I would say:
laSvarghHomchajDaq pIwvetlhvaD ngoy' net Qub
I would translate it into English as "It is thought that they are
responsible for those odours in their production unit(s)." It might also
mean, "It is thought that (s)he/it is responsible for those odour(s) in
their production unit(s)."
If I knew what was being produced I could form a clearer mind picture of
what a laSvarghHom might be. Around here odours and laSvargh go with pulp
and paper mills, which can be divided up two ways. Each line from start to
finish might be a laSvarghHom, or each section of the process might be
taken as a laSvarghHom.