tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Nov 20 09:27:46 2002

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: mu'qaD veS (was Re: QeD De'wI' ngermey)

>From: "...Paul" <>
> > What is "it" in this instance?  In Klingon, you can't make a sentence 
> > (as you can make it an object with /'e'/ or /net/), and it can't be 
> > (that's /-lu'/), except in a couple of cases like weather terms where
> > they're used more like exclamations than like sentences (e.g., /SIS/ 
> > raining").  You really have to specify WHAT depends on that.
>Also like { qay'be' }?

HIja'.  mu' mob jachlu'bogh 'oHlaH <qay'be'>'e'.

>Hmm...  What if I just used { vIt } (n. truth) for "it", and tweak the {
>legh } construction a bit to be more of a relative clause...
>qo' DuleghmoHlaHbogh qechlIj wuv vIt
>"Truth depends on your ideas which allow you to see the world."

I think you've got wrong prefix and suffixes there.  I read "Truth depends 
on the world your idea which causes you to be able to see."

You wanted

qo' Dalegh 'e' luchaw'bogh qechlIj wuv vIt.
Truth depends on your ideas which permit that you see the world.

>Is there a clean way in Klingon to represent "how" as a pronoun
>rather than a question word?

Klingon doesn't have relative pronouns!

>  Ooo, how about getting really metaphorical:
>vIt Danejbogh wuv vIt Daleghbogh
>"The truth you see depends on the truth you look for."


>Ooo, I really like that one.  I hope I got the syntax right -- I don't
>need any extra { -'e' }'s because there's only a single noun for each {
>-bogh } clause, right?

qarchu'.  Using /-'e'/ on the head noun of a relative clause with a non-head 
noun is optional.  Here's an example where that option is not used:

Hov ghajbe'bogh ram rur pegh ghajbe'bogh jaj.
A day without secrets is like a night without stars.

>Where is the rule that says things like { 'obe' } takes { 'oH } and not {
>chaH }?  TKD says { chaH } is used when referring to a group of beings
>capable of using language.  In this case, the { 'obe' } fits that
>description.  Although I can see a perfectly good reason for it, I'm just
>wondering where I missed it.

There have been canon examples, which I can't look up here, that demonstrate 
that words like /qorDu'/ are singular things, not multiple people.  A 
/qorDu'/ is made up of various /tuqnIgh/, but the /qorDu'/ is an /'oH/ and 
the /tuqnIgh/ as a group are /chaH/.

>Ha' mu'qaD veS wItagh!  bagh'egh DaQlIj 'e' yIchaw'Qo'  ;)

qatlh jechvetlh DatuQtaH . . . ?  toH, qablIj 'oH'a' jay'?!?

Stardate 2887.5

The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*

Back to archive top level