tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Aug 19 13:17:36 2004

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: Klingon WOTD: toy'wI''a' (n)

...Paul ([email protected]) [KLI Member] 

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004, Steven Boozer wrote:
> Voragh:
> > >> DIHIvbej [pagh] qo'chajDaq toy'wI''a' DImoj. (??)
> > >> Attack or be slaves in their world.  ST6
>
> If you listen to scene, the actor says {DIHIvbe[X?] qo'chajDaq toy'wI''a'
> DImoj} - omitting something between the first two words if we go by the
> subtitle.  OTOH, as it is this may be a case of a *very* colloquial elision:
>
>    DIHIvbe', qo'chajDaq toy'wI''a' DImoj.
>    We don't attack, we'll be slaves in their world.
>    ["(If) We don't attack (them), we'll be(come) slaves in their world."]

DIHIvbej.  qo'chajDaq toy'wI''a' DImoj.
"We undoubtedly attack them.  In their world, we would be slaves."

I think this elision is actually quite accurate.  Since there's no tense,
there's also no reason /DImoj/ could not refer to the future.  Arguably,
the locative could be the context for which "the future" is implied.

That said, I don't think it would be wrong to toss /pagh/ in there as a
conjunction.  But it's not necessary, if this context is clear.

It's like saying, "I don't drink coffee.  I don't want to be up all
night."  You don't HAVE to say "I don't drink coffee because I don't want
to be up all night."  The relationship is made clear by implication.

> ghunchu'wI':
> > > I think this is more likely to be {DIHIvbe'chugh qo'chajDaq...}
>
> But I like your suggestion better.  I guess I just wanted to use the
> conjunction {pagh} "or, or else, either/or".

I like all three.  This is one of those pleasant cases where I think the
point is made quite nicely in many ways.  A nice contrast to some of those
cases where it's difficult to convey something at all.  :)

> lay'tel:
> >It definitely *sounds* more Okrandian with {-chugh}.  As far as I can tell,
> >Okrand has never used {pagh} in this sense of "or (else)".

As pointed out, he's definitely used /pagh/ as a conjunction.  However, I
would say that Okrand rarely recasts things as two sentences, so the
/-be'chugh/ option or the /-bej pagh/ option might be more "Okrandian"
than the "elision" option.

...Paul

 **        Have a question that reality just can't answer?        **
  ** Visit Project Galactic Guide http://www.galactic-guide.com/ **
            "This above all:  to thine own self be true"
                    -- Hamlet, Act I, Scene III

Back to archive top level