tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Oct 31 11:10:29 2009

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: mech

Doq (

This is also how I would have used {mech}, had I used it before  
discussion. The items being traded are of equal status. One is not the  
beneficiary. Consider how you might say, "I'll sell you my betleH for  
300 credits." You wouldn't start out with {wejvatlh DeQvaD...}.  I'd  
say something more like {SoHvaD betleHwIj vIngevqang. wejvatlh DeQ  

Depending on the context, I might do something similar with {mech}.  
Any of the following would make sense to me:

be'leHlIj vIparHa'. be'leHwIj DaparHa'. be'leHmeymaj DImech 'e'  
vIchup. vaj maQuchchoH.

be'leHwIj vImech DaneHchugh, be'leHlIj vIpoQ.

I see the possessive suffixes as very useful for mech, though it  
becomes more difficult to clearly express "They traded betleHmey".  
Then, I'd use the noun-noun possessive construction instead of the  
noun prefix and handle it pretty much the same way.

ghunchu'wI' betleH SuStel betleH je mechta' ghunchu'wI' SuStel je.

or perhaps:

betleHmeychaj mech ghunchu'wI' SuStel je.


On Oct 28, 2009, at 5:56 PM, ghunchu'wI' wrote:

> On Oct 28, 2009, at 3:17 PM, qurgh lungqIj wrote:
>> Do we have any canon on how to use mech?
>> I'm trying to say "I want to trade my X for your Y". Is it as
>> simple as:
>> DaqtaghlIjvaD betleHwIj vImech vIneH
> I wouldn't expect this use of English "for" to match the Klingon {- 
> vaD}.
> Without specific official guidance, I'd probably consider the things
> being traded as a plural object and say it like this:
> DaqtaghlIj betleHwIj je DImech vIneH.
> -- ghunchu'wI'

Back to archive top level