tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Jul 17 08:01:42 2007
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Wool? In tlhIngan Hol?
mIqey (McArdle) wrote:
>I'm thinking of designing a t-shirt as a gift for my wife, who is a
>knitter. (That's an understatement. She lives to knit.) Since she enjoys
>my forays into thlIngan Hol almost as much as I do, I want it to be in
>Klingon. I was thinking of something on the order of "Klingon Wool Warrior".
>
>1) What is the word for "wool" or "yarn"? I haven't found anything about
>either in TKD or KGT, and I rather doubt that the subject has been
>addressed in canon (but would be glad to learn otherwise). In the absence
>of specific words for these, I've contemplated the following circumlocutions:
>
>for wool:
>{veD tun}, if {veD} is broader in application than English "fur" (which is
>by definition not wool).
This is all I have for {veD} "fur" and {veDDIr} "pelt (skin with fur still
attached)":
Accompanying sleeves ({tlhaymey}), originally not parts of the tunic
[{yIvbeH}]
itself, were generally made of animal pelts ({veDDIrmey}), skin ({DIr}) with
fur ({veD}) still attached." (KGT 58)
Since number is an optional category in Klingon (the plural suffix may be
left off even if the word refers to more than one thing), {DIr} may refer
to "a skin" or "skins" or "skin" as a material or substance. Likewise for
{veDDIr} "pelt, pelts". So the problem of which plural suffix to use comes
up only when one feels the need to be very specific. If I understand Maltz
correctly, it works like this: The general plural suffix {-mey} is not used
with body parts (except by poets, of course). Thus {DIrmey} "skins" and
{veDDIrmey} "pelts" are not (or, perhaps better, are no longer) body parts,
but rather are materials from which things (clothing or blankets, for
example)
may be made. They've lost their association with the creatures that
originally
had them. (This is kind of like the distinction in English between "beef",
which is eaten, and "cattle", which isn't.) If there still is that
association,
that is, if the creatures still have their skin, or if it's a creature that
has multiple skins (maybe layers, maybe different kinds of skin on different
parts of the body), or if the skin just came off either by natural causes
(as with Alan Anderson's snakes) or by the creatures being, well, skinned,
then the body-part plural suffix {-Du'} may be used: {DIrDu'}. But {DIr}
alone, without a suffix, is heard most often. (st.klingon 3/23/1998)
See also {pob} "hair on body", {jIb} "hair (on head)" and {DIr} "skin".
>{Ha'DIbaH pob tun}, if {pob} can be applied to the body hair of an animal
>as well as to that of a Klingon.
I would think {pob} is exactly the right word: {Ha'DIbaH pob} "animal
hair". (My guess is that {jIb} is primarily used for people.) I wouldn't
modify it further with {tun} "be soft". As we saw with {DIr}, context (and
the plural marker) tells you whether it's being viewed as an actual body
part or a separate material for clothing {Sut}.
>for yarn:
>
> {veD tun SIrgh}
> {Ha'DibaH pub tun SIrgh}
>
>Both of these rely on the ability to stuff an adjective into the middle of
>a noun-noun construction. If this isn't possible, then I suppose {veD
>SIrgh tun} or {Ha'DibaH pub SIrgh tun} would work, although I imagine yarn
>to be a "string of soft animal hair" rather than a "soft string of animal
>hair" (a distinction without a difference?).
You're trying to define "yarn", not translate it. Don't fixate on trivial
distinctions. Keep it simple: {pob SIrgh} "hair string/thread" or just
plain {SIrgh} would work:
Each string is a {SIrgh}, a word also used for any thread or filament. A
{SIrgh} of the finest quality is made from a material secreted by insects,
similar to the silk produced by silkworms. (KGT 76)
>2) I've been wrestling with what "Wool Warrior" actually *means*. It
>sounds good in English (at least
>to me) but its translation into Klingon isn't obvious.
This may be one of those phrases that works much better in English.
>Is the warrior fighting *against* wool/yarn, *on behalf* of it, or perhaps
>*wielding* it as a weapon (I think most knitters would say that there are
>times when they feel like they're doing all three)? I'm leaning toward
>the last interpretation for my translation, and am casting about for the
>proper verb. KGT translates {Qach} as "wield (a weapon)", but the
>examples it gives are specifically things that are held by a handle and
>swung (various types of {'obmaQ}, the {'aqleH} and the {jeqqIj}). The
>other option I'm aware of is the relatively colorless {lo'}.
Since it's supposed to be amusing, I think {Qach} works:
To wield or swing a club is {Qach} ... To manipulate the {'aqleH} is {Qach}.
(KGT 64)
As with axes, to wield or swing a club is {Qach}. (KGT 67)
Also consider {yan} "wield a sword" - Klingons do have long, straight
swords as well as the curved bat'leth, and your wife would be wielding
long, straight knitting needles - which I suppose Klingons would call
{naQHommey} "sticks", known so far WRT musical instruments:
The general term for a percussion instrument of any kind is {'In} [...]
Other
members of this group of instruments are hit with a stick of some kind. The
stick often resembles a small hammer; when it does, it is termed {mupwI'Hom}
(literally, "small striker"). A plain stick is a {naQHom} (literally, "small
cane" or "small staff"). To strike the instrument with a stick is to {moq}
("beat") the instrument." (KGT 74-75)
The clicking of the needles as they strike against each other might be
described as {moq}.
>One way I imagine putting this all together is:
>
> {Ha'DIbaH pub [or {veD}] tun Qachbogh [or {lo'bogh}] tlhIngan SuvwI''e'}
>
>How does this seem? (BTW, how do people feel about the use of -{'e'} on
>{SuvwI'}? I believe that some source - CK? - has shown that it's not
>obligatory. Would the phrase be understood without it?)
It would, but since you're using so many nouns it's not a bad idea to tag
the topic noun of a relative clause with a {-'e'}. Simplifying this as
I've suggested gives us"
Ha'DIbaH SIrgh Qachbogh tlhIngan SuvwI'('e')
or even simpler:
SIrgh Qachbogh SuvwI'('e')
or simpler still:
SIrgh SuvwI'
>People might get a kick out of the second line of text I plan to use:
>
> {nguvmoHlu'meH QaQ jajvam}
Ha! A bilingual pun. Okrand would love it! <g>
--
Voragh
Ca'Non Master of the Klingons