tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Aug 19 16:56:55 2004
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Klingon WOTD: toy'wI''a' (n)
- From: "QeS lagh" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Klingon WOTD: toy'wI''a' (n)
- Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 09:10:15 +1000
- Bcc:
ghItlhpu' Paul:
>DIHIvbej. qo'chajDaq toy'wI''a' DImoj.
>"We undoubtedly attack them. In their world, we would be slaves."
Interesting theory. It's useful to remember that Klingon has nothing like
the English subjunctive mood, or a translation for "would", so I think this
is a good candidate. Although, I'm a bit mystified as to why Okrand didn't
use {-nIS} here: {DIHIvnISbej} "we definitely need to attack them". With
{pagh} in the sentence, it's not so important.
Although, I want to ask: When I watched ST:VI, I thought that the officer in
fact said {qo'chajDaq toy'wI'chaj DImoj} "in their world, we would become
their slaves". I might have to go back and have a look at this, but I
distinctly remember hearing oral consonants rather than glottal stops in the
third word.
>As pointed out, he's definitely used /pagh/ as a conjunction.
I would guess because {pagh} *is* a conjunction, qar'a'? {{:)
>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.
He recasts things as two sentences all the time. {{:) I don't see a problem
with having two sentences here.
Savan.
QeS lagh
not nItoj He ngo' jup qan je
(Old roads and old friends will never deceive you)
- Ubykh Hol vIttlhegh
_________________________________________________________________
All only $4! Get the latest mobile tones, images and logos:
http://fun.mobiledownloads.com.au/191191/index.wl