tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Aug 13 22:52:54 2005
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: DaHjaj jIlop
- From: "QeS lagh" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: DaHjaj jIlop
- Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2005 15:52:34 +1000
- Bcc:
ghItlhpu' Voragh, ja':
>Musing on translating "turning 22"... Okrand wrote on
>msn.onstage.startrek.expert.Okrand (12/12/96):
> The phrase {loSmaH ben jIH} ... if anything, would mean
> "40-year-old me" or the like. It would parallel {cha'
> vatlh ben HIq} "Two Century Old Wine" ... "I am 40 years
> old" would be expressed as: {loSmaH ben jIboghpu'}. This
> is "I was born 40 years ago". As is normal in Klingon
> sentences, the time element (in this case, {loSmaH ben}
> "40 years ago") comes first.
>I wonder if you can use {DaHjaj} or {jajvam} with {-pu'} even though the
>completed act "being born" occurred 22 years ago:
> ? DaHjaj cha'maH cha' ben boghpu' QeS la'
> Cdr. QeS was born 22 years ago today.
That's a very interesting question. The idea is still communicated, but
since {DaHjaj} includes {DaH} "now", I'd imagine that {DaHjaj cha'maH cha'
ben boghpu'} would be conflicting. However, to take a literal view of it,
{jajvam} doesn't refer to "today", but "this day". Since the Klingons seem
to have a well-developed calendar system, I'd imagine that they could
understand "this day" in the same way as we would: as a day with the same
name and number, not necessarily just "the day that is happening now". In
short, I think that *{DaHjaj cha'maH cha' ben boghpu'} would not resolve
sensibly in a Klingon's mind, but that {jajvam cha'maH cha' ben boghpu'}
would. Of course, vuDwIj 'oH neH.
>I also wonder if you can use the Type 3 suffix {-choH} "change in
>state/direction" with {bogh} "be born". Can the "change in state" refer to
>something happening today (the anniversary), not 22 years ago (i.e. the
>birth)?
> ? DaHjaj cha'maH cha' ben boghchoHpu' QeS la'
> ? jajvam cha'maH cha' ben boghchoHpu' QeS la'
That's a good question too, and I'm not sure I can answer it. Let me think
about it for a little while, and I'll get back to you on that one. {{:)
>Another option might be to use {moj} "become" (with the same caveat about
>{DaHjaj} and {jajvam}):
> ? DaHjaj cha'maH cha' ben loD moj(choH) QeS la'.
> "Today Cdr. QeS becomes (turns into) a 22-year-old man."
> ? jajvam cha'maH cha' ben loD moj(choH) QeS la'.
> "On this day Cdr. QeS becomes (turns into) a 22-year-old man."
In these instances, I don't think there is a conflict. Given Okrand's quote
above about {cha'vatlh ben HIq} "two century old wine", {cha'maH cha' ben
loD} would probably parse not as a time stamp plus noun, but as a noun-noun
construction "22-year-old man". In this case, there is only one time stamp,
either {DaHjaj} or {jajvam}, and therefore no conflict between time stamps
(because there is only one true time stamp).
>Although very Klingon, that's not a very happy thought for your birthday.
>Here's a better one:
> SuvmeH 'ej charghmeH bogh tlhInganpu'
> Klingons are born to fight and to conquer. TKW
Excellent sentiment. {{:)
>qoSlIj DatIvjaj!
qatlho'qu', Voragh. Qapla'!
Savan,
QeS la'
taghwI' pabpo' / Beginners' Grammarian
not nItoj Hemey ngo' juppu' ngo' je
(Old roads and old friends will never deceive you)
- Ubykh Hol vIttlhegh
_________________________________________________________________
Sell your car for $9 on carpoint.com.au
http://www.carpoint.com.au/sellyourcar