tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Dec 01 13:57:14 2009

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

Re: Numbers with pronouns

Christopher Doty (suomichris@gmail.com)



On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 13:34, ghunchu'wI' 'utlh <qunchuy@alcaco.net> wrote:
> The extreme oddness is probably due to the fact that {nItebHa'
> maHtaHvIS} has neither an object nor a locative, which are the only
> two ways TKD describes how to use a pronoun in the sense of "to be".
> The closest thing I can get from this phrase is "Acting in concert,
> while we 'be'..."

I don't know why you've translated it like this, though.  <maH>, used
verbally, doesn't mean "we be" (which is not standard English,
although it does occur in some dialects, but with a distinct aspectual
meaning); it means "we are."  If you are trying to translate
literally, it should be "Acting in concert, while we are..."  But,
again, you've done something of a disservice to the Klingon meaning,
as adverbs in Klingon come first, but move around a lot in English.
Just as one wouldn't translate <pa'qIjDaq jIH> as "In my quarters, I
am being," so too with this example. A better translation, literal
save for the reordering of words to match English syntax, would be
"While we are acting in concert..."

> No, it really doesn't work. The obvious intent is
> {matay'taHvIS} "while we are together". For example, from TKW page
> 209:

See my previous email, sent after you sent this.  It appears that
<nItebHa'> and <tay'> have slight meaning differences, and the meaning
of <nItebHa'> seems to work better in this context.

>  {wa' Dol nIvDaq matay'DI' maQap}
>  "We succeed together in a greater whole."
>
> In general, adding adverbials or time stamps or other
> appropriately-marked nouns at the beginning of a "to be" sentence
> doesn't seem wrong to me: {SuSmo' reH qoH ghaH} "He is always a fool
> because of the wind," or the canon {DaHjaj SuvwI' SoH} "Today you are
> a warrior." It's when the sentence *lacks* the pieces described in TKD
> that it falls short of conveying a proper meaning.

I'm not sure what you think is lacking in <nItebHa' maHtaHvIs>, based
on the examples you give here...






Back to archive top level