tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Feb 22 07:56:13 2007

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

RE: Dilbert Comic in Klingon for February 10, 2007

Steven Boozer ([email protected])



pm5 wrote:
>>  pIn: {mu'tlheghvam vItu'.  <quSlIjDaq jIqomHa'rupchoHmoH> bIja'.}
>>Boss: "For example, this one says you will 'decompose in your chair.'"

pm5 asks:
> > I have a question on {chenHa'moH}.  It seems to me that what Dilbert
> > wants to say is {jIchenHa'moH} "I will become destroyed", but is this
> > grammatical?  There seems no example of {chen} without an object.  We

DloraH:
>/chen/ does not take an object. (I'm sure you ment chenmoH there).

pm5 is probably not aware of them, but there are several such examples of 
{chen} "build up, take form, take shape" - all from math (cf. HolQeD 
9.3).  Here's an example of each of the four basic arithmetical functions:

4 + 3 = 7
wej boq loS; chen Soch
four plus 3 equals seven
("four allies with three; seven forms")

4 ? 3 = 1
loS boqha' wej; chen wa'
four minus three equals one
("three dissociates from four, one forms")

2 x 3 = 6
cha'logh boq'egh wej; chen jav
two times three equals six
("twice, three allies with itself, six forms")

6 ÷ 3 = 2
wejlogh boqHa''egh jav; chen cha'
6 divided by 3 equals 2
("three times, six dissociates from itself, two forms")

> > could say {jIchenHa''eghmoH} "I will destroy my self" or even
> > {vIchenHa'moHlu'} "someone will destroy me" but that does not convey
> > the same meaning.

DloraH:
>/chenmoH/ does have an object, but I don't see why it MUST have an object.
>jIchenmoH "I create".  I don't specify what I create, just that I create 
>in the general sense.  I am
>a chenmoHwI', a creator.
>
> > {vIchenHa'moHlu'} "someone will destroy me"
>
>muchenHa'moH vay' - "somebody will 'destroy' me"
>vIchenHa'moHlu' - "I will be 'destroyed'"
>
> > {jIchenHa'moH} "I will become destroyed"
>
>vIchenHa'choHmoHlu' - "I will become 'destroyed'"
>jIchenHa'moH - "I 'destroy'" (in the general sense)

lay'tel SIvten:
>{jIchenHa'moH} means 'I (will/do/did) destroy' (to use your gloss), not 'I
>will become destroyed'.
>{chen} takes no object, while {chenmoH} always has an object, even if it's
>only implied.

Back to the comic strip... why not just say *{jIchenHa'} "I will 
disintegrate/fall apart/lose my form, etc." and avoid the {-moH} problem 
altogether?



--
Voragh
Ca'Non Master of the Klingons






Back to archive top level