tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Mar 01 17:13:32 2004

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: geography

Quvar ([email protected]) [KLI Member] [Hol ghojwI']

Am 01.03.2004 20:28:19, schrieb "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>:

>TKD gives us rules for combining nouns.  This is the noun-noun construction.
>TKD does not give us rules for squishing two nouns into the same word.

he he heee

>These are compound nouns, and TKD simply describes them; it doesn't say we
>can construct them.

I know. I've read that book.

>I would accept {puH tej} as a legal construction.  Without the consent of a
>Klingon, I would not accept {puHtej}.

Since we don't exactly know how klingons write, there might be no difference between those two. (even though some people can 
make a difference in the sound, I still think it's very similar)
If I remember correctly, there are several words that are no clearly divided (please correct me if I'm wrong), like {ro'qegh'Iwchab} vs. 
{ro'qegh_'Iwchab}, {'IwHIq} vs. {'Iw_HIq} - and why is {HIqqIj} one word, while {yo' qIj} is two words? Yes, I know, it's a 
language... :-)

>And if you say they're the same thing when you say them, then you'll have no
>problem with writing it as {puH tej}.

haha! Yes, indeed.

>to explicitly mention that the word you're using was made up by you.

I will do so.

>SoQvamvaD mu' vI'ogh: puHQeD.  puH QulDI' tej, puHQeD ghaH.

loQ bIQaghlaw'pu'. puHQeD ghaHbej'a'?

>I believe Okrand explains some of this in KGT.  I don't have the book handy,
>but look near the beginning, when he starts describing regionalisms.

I don't have kgt here either! I left it at my parents' in Belgium, because my sister has given a speech about Klingon at university. I 
won't get to see it before the end of march.

>I understood {puHQeD} because you also used the word "geography" in your
>post.  It might not be that obvious.  "Land-science."

perhaps "landscape-science" is better?
Yes, I also thought of "geology" instead of "geography", but it's only the latter that I mean.

>Are you trying to gauge how many people can correctly guess your meaning in
>a made-up word?  You want a guessing contest?

ghu'maj Dayajbe'law', Sa'! (ST6)

Somehow you don't seem to understand what I mean. 
Perhaps because it's difficult to communicate through email sometimes.

I am translating a story where there is one person whose job it is to write down the names of the mountains, the cities, the rivers, the 
forests etc. Maybe he even is not a {tej}, perhaps just a {ghItlhwI'}. puH Qulbe' ghaH. puH De' Sambogh QulwI' qon loDvam. 

yes!! I need to MAKE UP a word. I admit. The question is merely if the MADE UP WORD *puHQeD* fits the above idea, or if it 
would be better to talk about the "landscape-science" instead or so. Yes, NO! don't speak! I know you cannot answer to that, no one 
can. I would only like to get as close as possible, INVENTing a word following the pattern of {Holtej} and {HolQeD} [I actually see 
no problem with this since MO himself has already adapted some words to this pattern] My question in the first place was actually just 
which word would describe the thing that this person from the story has researched and writes down.
I won't say that this IS the word for geography. I don't need a word for geography. 

>I can put a lot of meanings to the formations you used above.  They're still
>not known words.  You acknowledge this, but you're still trying to use them
>as words.

errr,... yes. 
But I promise that I will restrict its usage to this one story. ;-)
Just like I will never use the word *pemHov*, unless I'm acting a Shakespearean play.

Quvar.

Back to archive top level