tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Nov 24 13:15:20 2009

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: The topic marker -'e'

ghunchu'wI' (

On Nov 24, 2009, at 1:14 PM, Christopher Doty wrote:

> "As for linguists, the Klingon language is very plain (by which I
> assumed you meant straightforward)."

If I had meant "straightforward", I likely would have said {nap}.   
{nIt} means more like "unblemished" than "unadorned", which is what I  
think "plain" implies.

"As for linguists"...and then you don't say anything about  
linguists.  I'm not really sure what that is intended to mean, so I  
guess you managed to express it appropriately in the Klingon. :)

You made one simple error which I can correct without understanding  
the idea as a whole -- you had a space between {tej} and {'e'}.  If  
you wanted the type 5 "topic" suffix, you needed to say {tej'e'}.

> There's no way that I can find in any of the Okrand sources for
> obliques, instruments, etc.

I don't see how this relates to anything, but "instruments" can be  
described thus:
{lemDu' pe'meH vutwI', warjun lo'} "The cook cut the hooves with a  

> But, the 'e' seems to do this a bit in
> some places, so I was stretching.  I could have said "linguists think
> that ...." but that doesn't have quite the sense I wanted.

It probably would have had the advantage of making sense.

Linguists think the Klingon language is very plain?  No argument  
there.  Most of its speakers would agree that it's essentially a toy  
compared to just about any natural language.  Linguists think the  
Klingon language is very straightforward?  Again, no argument.  Its  
rules are simple and its exceptions are vanishingly few.

Alas, I find that "linguists tend to bring unnecessary preconceptions  
to Klingon" is too often the case as well.

-- ghunchu'wI'

Back to archive top level