tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Jun 26 10:50:49 2009
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Klingon translation
Terrence Donnelly (email@example.com)
- From: Terrence Donnelly <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: Re: Klingon translation
- Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 10:48:24 -0700 (PDT)
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sbcglobal.net; s=s1024; t=1246038504; bh=+9vEWZkmOm+20ABBu826KP2vF2ZHY/+L06qaIKTlJwo=; h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:Date:From:Subject:To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=nQNmXBnz5SS/fmMkEcX5cN0BR3AMBWEpKraya9sTXQGFP1Jk/wHd33eYDo4l9rm4Kau50+C6ssCD/KGXGIF5UA+EeJ1k04YFfAwzAhV6jIlf3HaJ9w+7D0gcgkV+N/8wLT0hwMJQ+7nMKvZeqv35aK+jmpnM1nB2OPkyPb8Itqs=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=sbcglobal.net; h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:Date:From:Subject:To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=ekw0QYvTtAqoWPKGwuvwSq0pVvOJ2DMrR+r9KjS+/P95vCw6jKeWoh4xnJsLTkgK6PUKv+UEpnLUx3RYbJix82pE4gzrIYso1PGLO0gemJLh1OQxkMu5Bydqwh9sN4BOpMdXm4MkA77JN1/7gyOw7mYVUqkbM5VHlyJet93F2wc=;
--- On Fri, 6/26/09, Michael Everson <email@example.com> wrote:
> On 26 Jun 2009, at 15:21, ghunchu'wI'
> 'utlh wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 9:12 AM, Mark J. Reed<firstname.lastname@example.org>
> > wrote:
> >> And I thought the use of questions as objects
> ("who is stronger
> >> than whom? They argue about it.") was a common
> device for faking
> >> relative
> >> pronouns.
> > It's common enough among people trying to translate
> into Klingon. It
> > is not common in canon. It is, in fact, entirely
> absent from canon.
> So... one has to read everything in canon before ....
> > I apologize for not having a reference handy, but I
> recall Okrand
> > telling us explicitly that questions are not used as
> objects in
> > Klingon.
> I can't be expected to know this. I have TKD and KGT and a
> list of
> Words Not In TKD from 1997.
You might want to take a look at my Klingon Grammar Addendum, at
Topics 6.4 and 6.6 would seem especially relevant to this discussion.
Despite its age, the text is still pretty comprehensive, since not that much new has appeared in the past few years.