tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu May 29 04:45:31 2003
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: jaghla’ x jagh la'
ghItlh QaroH
>Hallo,
Hello.
>The jaghla? ? could this be in fact jagh la? ?
>Or is it a canon because it was in TKD like this?
>Which one is correct?
One question, three answers:
First explanation: we don't know how klingon is *really* written, what we write is only a transcription of how it is spoken. What
would be the difference (in english) "enemycommander" or "enemy-commander" or "enemy commander"?
So, for a Klingon perhabs {jaghla'} is the same as {jagh la'}
My second explanation, a bit longer:
{jaghla'} is a compound noun as discribed in section 3.2.1, similar to the word {jolpa'}, made of the two nouns {jagh} and {la'}
So this is literally "enemy-commander".
The two words seperated would be a noun-noun construction, tkd section 3.4. :
<<<<
The translation of two nouns combined in this way, say N1-N2 (that is, noun #1 followed by noun #2), would be "N2 of the N1." [...]
An alternate translation would be "Nl's N2,"
>>>>
so {jagh la'} is "commander of the enemy" or "the enemy's commander".
Both are correct.
What's the difference?
Just look at the english translation. {jaghla'} sounds like a general term for any enemy-commander, a commander that's not yours, so
an enemy-commander, while {jagh la'} is used to make clear it's "the enemy's commander", not his wife.
Third answer:
Maybe MO did a typo? {jaghla'} is not in the wordlist.
Quvar
Beginners' Grammarian
ghojwI'pu'wI' vISaH