tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Oct 05 23:20:26 2002

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: nuralngan

From: "DloraH" <>
> > > > toH!  taQqu' mu'vam: nuralngan.  tlhIngan Hol mu'ghomDaq yISam 'ej
> > > > yIlaDchu'.  taQ, qar'a'?
> > >
> > > qatlh taQ?
> >
> > nural ngan Delbe'!  nural ngan Hol'e' Del!
> Hol ngan je Del Chinese Japanese Vietnamese je

'a tlhIngan Hol jatlhlu'DI' 'ej Hol ponglu'DI', jatlhnISlu'law' <Hol>!!

I've always taken it as a fact that you have to use the word /Hol/ when
talking about a particular language.  After all, we tell beginners that the
language isn't called /tlhIngan/, it's called /tlhIngan Hol/.  And while
this is stated explicity in KLINGON FOR THE GALACTIC TRAVELER (p. 10), we'd
been telling this to beginners long before this book was published (see, for
instance, the name of this mailing list).

So where did this rule come from?  Why CAN'T beginners call the language
/tlhIngan/?  Was this convention created by the early list denizens?  Is
there a HolQeD article explaining this?  I certainly can't find any
reference to this in THE KLINGON DICTIONARY.

 Prove to me that */tlhIngan vIjatlh/ is wrong.  I want a reference.

Anyway, my point is that if /Hol/ IS required, then the word /nuralngan/ is
REALLY weird.  I'd have expected /nuralngan Hol/.  /nuralngan/ looks like it
should mean "inhabitant of Nural."  "Chinese," "Japanese" and so on are not
nouns meaning "inhabitant of XXX," except in the sense of an entire people.
You can say /tera'ngan ghaH/ "He is an Earthling," but you can't say "He is
a Chinese."  You CAN say "He is Chinese," but then you've got an adjective,
not a noun.

Stardate 2763.0

Back to archive top level