tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Sep 12 17:05:41 2002

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: re: nuH

Am 12.09.2002 11:58:52, schrieb "Agnieszka Solska" <>:

>This would suggest that {nuH} is probably the best way to refer to both a 
>weapon (singular) and weapons (plural). Perhaps {nuHmey} can be applied both 
>to "weapons" and "arsenal", 
can also be translated as "weaponry".

>	cha' nuHmey vIghaj
>	[I have two arsenals]
>if all I had was just a phaser and a dagger.

>Because of the plural suffix {-mey}, {nuHmey} "arsenal" probably has to be 
How is this with the word for hotel {mebpa'mey}? What is two hotels? {mebpa'meymey}?? No.

These examples
   vISeHmeH Hoch nuHmey Qay! [Transfer] All weapons to my control.
   nuHmey nISbe'bogh So'wI' a cloaking device which doesn't disrupt weaponry

make me think that in Klingon, they don't think of the word "arsenal", when they hear {nuHmey}. It's not 
a single word, but {nuH} plus the suffix {-mey}, and it's used to refer to what we would call an arsenal 
or weaponry, or a bunch of weapons.

>treated as a plural noun, which makes me wonder how to express the following 
>The Romulans destroyed our arsenal:
>nuHmeywIj ?luQaw'/?Qaw' romuluSnganpu'.
Yes, that would work, I think, since they destroyed everything, all the weapons

>The colony had three arsenals and four warships.
>The invaders destroyed one arsenal and two warships.
>wej nuHmey los veSDuj(mey) je ghajpu' mID.
>?wa' nuHmey, cha' veSDuj(mey) je Qaw' yotwI'pu'.

That's tricky, but maybe we cannot translate it that way. I believe a klingon does not understand what 
you mean with "two weaponries".
I prefer {bID nuHmey} or {HochHom nuHmey} or someting describing how much of the {nuHmey} was destroyed.


Back to archive top level