tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Oct 24 18:55:51 2007
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: qechmey
I'd probably do something like:
waq'e' chang'eng vItuQ.
waq'e' chalvo' pum chang'eng.
The topic would explain what the pair is.
It's like saying, "Shoe, I wore a pair." "Shoe, a pair fell from the
sky." It makes sense to me, anyway. It makes more clear sense to me
than either arrangement of noun-noun construction. I don't see a way
that noun-noun means "X of Y" in Klingon in this sense.
I'd think that {chang'eng waqmey} meant "pair's shoes" or "shoes of a
pair" and the pair might be a pair of people. Who knows how many
shoes we're talking about? Could be hundreds.
I think {waqmey chang'eng} would be "shoes' pair" or "pair of some
shoes", like something that comes in twos that belongs to a
collection of shoes.
If it were a number word, you probably would omit the plural suffix
on {waq}. But it is not obviously a number word. It's likely just a
noun, usually used by itself with context explaining what it is a
pair of.
Even in English, "pair" and "two" don't mean exactly the same thing.
There's an implied relationship between members of a pair that is not
entirely conveyed by the simple number two.
juppu'wI' vIghom. mamI'meH chang'engmey DIchenmoH.
That's a lot less confusing than saying, "I met my friends. In order
that we dance, we formed pictures."
Doq
On Oct 24, 2007, at 2:12 PM, Steven Boozer wrote:
> Jon:
>>> On another issue, how do you use {chang'eng}? Would "pair of
>>> shoes" be
>>> rendered "shoes' pair" and so {chang'eng waqmey}?
>
> ghunchu'wI':
>> The phrase "shoes' pair" would be {waqmey chang'eng} in Klingon.
>>
>> I'd interpret {chang'eng waqmey} as referring to "pair shoes" as
>> opposed to some other kind of shoes...which would make me wonder what
>> other kind of shoes there would be.
>
> The noun {chang'eng} may work like the problematic noun {bID}
> "half", used
> only once in canon:
>
> cha' choQmey naQ tu'lu' 'ej tep choQ bIngDaq lo' law' bID choQ
> tu'lu'
> 2 Full Decks and a Half Utility Deck under the Cargo Deck
> (KBoP)
>
> The problem is that both of these words are nouns, not numbers -
> "numeric
> nouns" perhaps? (Can anyone think of others?) {bID choQ} suggests
> to me
> that ?{chang'eng waq(mey)} just might be possible. As ghunchu'wI' has
> said, though, what exactly it would mean is unclear.
>
> And how you would use either of these "numeric nouns" with a
> number? Can
> you say ?{wa'maH bID choQmey} or ?{wa'maH chang'eng waqmey}, or do
> omit the
> second noun and rely on context: ?{wa'maH bIDmey}, ?{wa'maH
> chang'engmey}?
>
> Voragh:
>>> I've wondered about that myself, but canon isn't very helpful.
>>> {chang'eng}
>>> "pair" debuted in the Klingon Bird of Prey Poster labelled parts
>>> list:
>>>
>>> nISwI': cha' chang'engmey (telDaq lujomlu', nItebHa' lubaHlu')
>>> Disruptor - 2 Pairs (Wing Mounted, Fire Linked) (KBoP)
>>>
>>> Our only other example was in the humorous "making of" feature at
>>> the end
>>> of the ST5 Special Edition DVD:
>>>
>>> tlhIngan chang'engvetlh
>>> that Klingon couple (ST5 DVD)
>
> ghunchu'wI':
>> Since the correct usage isn't immediately obvious, my tactic would be
>> to dance around the problem. If I wanted to be clearly understood
>> while talking about a pair of shoes, I'd say something first to
>> establish that I was talking about shoes, and then refer to them
>> simply as a {chang'eng}.
>
> If {cha' waq(mey)wIj} "my two shoes" for "my pair of shoes" won't
> work, the
> only way I know works is to make it a kind of list as in the KBoP
> example:
>
> jav waqmey: wej chang'eng(mey)
> six shoes: three pair(s)
>
> or use it in apposition or in a parenthetical comment to {waqmey}:
>
> puqloDwI' pa' ghIHDaq wa'maH waqmey (vagh chang'eng[mey]) vIlegh.
> I see ten shoes (i.e. five pair[s]) in my son's messy room.
>
> though why you would really feel compelled to specify the number of
> pairs
> is beyond me.
>
>
>
> --
> Voragh
> Ca'Non Master of the Klingons
>
>
>