tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Dec 02 15:27:07 2009

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: Cogito ergo sum (was RE: Numbers with pronouns)

Christopher Doty (

On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 15:08, David Trimboli <> wrote:
> These aren't complete sentences; they're not-yet-used examples.
> I'm home now, so I can find a good one in KGT:
>    Hoch nuH qel ("consider every weapon")
>    This is an idiom cloaked in the terminology of the military that has
>    a wider application. It is used to mean "Consider every possibility"
>    or "Consider every option," with the word {nuH} ("weapon") standing
>    metaphorically for "possibility." ({Hoch} means "all, every" and
>    {qel} is "consider, take into account.") It is not a set phrase, so
>    it is heard in various forms, such as a command ({Hoch nuH
>    yIqel!}—literally, "Consider every weapon!" but meaning "Consider
>    every possibility!"), question ({Hoch nuH Daqel'a'?} ["Did you
>    consider every weapon?"]), or statement ({Hoch nuH wIqelpu'} ["We've
>    considered every weapon"]), and it can be negated ({Hoch nuH qelbe'}
>    ["He/she does not consider every weapon"]). The regular word for
>    "possibility" is {DuH}, and, grammatically, there is no reason it
>    could not occur instead of {nuH} in these sentences ({Hoch DuH yIqel}
>    ["Consider every possibility!"] is a perfectly well formed sentence),
>    but this is simply not the normal way to express the advice. The use
>    of {nuH} "weapon" for {DuH} ("possibility") may have been influenced
>    by the Krotmag dialect pronunciation of {DuH} as something very close
>    to {nuH}...
> You can't use these phrases in sentences, but it shows how Okrand (and
> maybe Klingons) think of these phrases without regard to person or mood.

This looks very much like clipped Klingon to me, with the imperative
prefix left off, similar to what we are talking about below,

> True, but I believe Hamlet is pondering his OWN reasons for living or
> not living; not abstract ones. It all depends very much on one's reading
> of the text.

Yes, well, this is rather the challenge of translating poetry (or
anything, for that matter): what does this actually *mean*.  It's not
made any easier in the case of Shakespeare, given his penchant for
making up words to fit the meter, moving words all over the place,

Back to archive top level