tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Nov 06 12:36:50 2003
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Barclay rur ghaH
Voragh:
> >jav quvqa'meH vIttlhegh tu'lu' 'e' vIHar:
Quvar:
>it should be {qa'meH vIttlhegh}:
>
> >>>The Klingon term for a "replacement proverb" is qa'meH
> vIttlhegh. This is the only way to say
>"replacement proverb" currently, but in the past, the common term was the
>lengthier quvqa'meH
>vIttlhegh, literally, "proverb for (the purpose of) being honored again." <<<
bIlugh SoH. I guess my Klingon is a bit old-fashioned...
>and it should be {lutu'lu'}
... but colloquial. E.g.:
naDev puqpu' tu'lu'
there are children around here TKD
naDev tlhInganpu' tu'lu'
There are Klingons around here. TKD
QuvlIjDaq yIHmey tu'be'lu'jaj
May your coordinates be free of tribbles! PK
naDev cha'maH cha' joQDu' tu'lu'
There are twenty-two ribs here KGT
moQDaq DuQwI'Hommey jej tu'lu'
A brutally spiked pommel fastens the hilt together. SP2
SuvwI'pu' qan tu'lu'be'
There are no old warriors. TKW
reH nuHmey tu'lu'
There are always weapons. KCD
Okrand has explained (or, rather, explained away) the several canonical
examples of {tu'lu'} with a plural subject (or is it object?). ghunchu'wI'
writes that at qep'a' loSDIch "Robyn Stewart's [i.e. Qov] idea of
{lutu'lu'} as "the Klingon version of 'whom' got a nod and an explicit lack
of contradiction [from Okrand]. {naDev tlhInganpu' lutu'lu'} *is*
grammatical, but the {lu-} is more often left off."
charghwI' added: "... in English, most people use the word 'who' when
formally they should be using 'whom', much like most Klingons use the word
{tu'lu'} when they should be using {lutu'lu'}. In other words, the more
formally correct sentence is {tlhInganpu' lutu'lu'} though most Klingons
most of the time would say {tlhInganpu' tu'lu'}."
Besides, I'm not a Grammarian. I don't have to speak correctly all of the
time for the beginners! <g>
> >Since his gloss "pretend" doesn't take an object in English, {ghet}
> >probably doesn't either. (Okrand has become very careful about this - if
> > [...] As it is, though, it's a good equivalent for English
> >"act" which, without a preposition, also doesn't take an object.
>
>My dictionary tells me you can "act a part" (transitive), and also just
>"act" (intransitive), which is
>"playing in a theater".
True, though "act a part" is a set expression (variation: "act the lead
[part]") and cannot really be used as a pattern, substituting just any
noun. You can't say, for example, "act a character" or "acted a Klingon"
or "Michael Dorn acted Worf" (though as a foreigner you would be understood
in spite of the error). You have to say "portray" or "play".
>So if I got it right now, {Da} touches the first idea, and {ghet} is
>closer to the last idea. qar'a'?
>
> > ghetchu' ghetwI'vam.
> > This actor acts well.
>
>The rest of the sentences are good, we just don't know if the english
>translation is correct. ;-)
Agreed. But until we hear differently from Maltz, we can probably use
these when discussing the television episodes and movies, at least here on
the List, where we also use such non-canon words as *{jIHlut}, *{lutHom},
*{DawI'}, etc.
>By the way, could one say {chuvbogh mu'tlheghmey} for "the rest of the
>sentences"? (i.e. "all the
>other sentences, except the ones I just mentioned")
"sentences which are left over".
Grammatical, but too fancy. Just say {mu'tlheghmey chuv}. We have an
example of how to use {chuv} "be left over" KGT:
By the end of the meal, all of the ordered food should be gone
(except, for, of course, whatever may have been spilled, dropped,
or thrown). {Soj chuv} ("leftover food") is rare unless all members
of a dining party were called away midmeal." [KGT p.102]
Another option is, of course, {latlh mu'tlheghmey} "the other sentences" or
{latlh mu'tlheghmeyvam} "those other sentences" - relying on context to
keep everything straight.
--
Voragh
Ca'Non Master of the Klingons
![[KLI Member]](/pics/KLImemberbutton.gif "[KLI Member]"){kind=small}