tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Mar 03 06:54:57 2004

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: tuj luSpetmey

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

Am 03.03.2004 03:50:31, schrieb "De'vID jonwI'" <[email protected]>:

>That's an interesting suggestion.  I wonder if <ghor> applies
>to astronomical objects other than "planets", even though that's
>the given definition.

We always stick to the definition as much as possible. Otherwise, you should explain in your text that 
you are "mis-using" this word for something else.
Perhaps one day, Maltz will tell us that this word can also be used with other things too? We can'zt know 
for now.

>For example, does a <Hov> have a <ghor>?

Does a STAR have a surface of a PLANET? yIQubchu'! ;-)

>escape velocity is exactly the speed of light).  But who's to say
>that Klingons make the same distinction as humans?

Exactly. So we can't know how they call it. Certainly nothing close to "event horizon" (a standard terran 
doesn't know either what this is), it could be anything.

>'otlh veH 'oH luSpet wanI' ghangwI' 'e'. 

I still like your approach to the problem. If one knows what they mean, these are nice images. But like 
SuStel, not so many people like playing guessing games ;-)

>(I wanted to stick <-nIS> to <tIn> in the above <law'/puS>
>construction... can I do that?  It looked odd.)

this avoids the problem:
{narghwI' Do tIn law' 'otlh Do tIn puS 'e' poQlu'.}
     (indefinite subject)
{narghwI' Do tIn law' 'otlh Do tIn puS net poQ.}
     (definite fact)

I can't say if that's good or not, I don't remember seeing any suffixes inside the law'/puS formula.
{narghwI' Do tIn *law'nIS* 'otlh Do tIn *puSnIS*} (?)
"n-speed big be many, o-speed big be few"
--> "n-speed big needs be many, o-speed big needs be few"

(ya, that's not the perfect translation, I wanted to keep the structure visible)

>So perhaps instead of looking for words like "surface area"
>and "volume", I should really be looking at ways of expressing
>"contains (in 2D)" and "contains (in 3D)".  <ngaS> might do,
>but how do I differentiate the 2D and 3D cases?

Why do you need to make the difference anyway?

If I'd say (bad english) the bottle measures two gallons, the movie measures two hours, the surface 
measures twenty square feet, you'll certainly know which is 3D or 2D, even though I didn't make a 
difference.

Quvar.

Back to archive top level