tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Sep 02 07:23:05 2009

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

RE: Doctoral project on the Klingon language

Steven Boozer (sboozer@uchicago.edu)



Voragh:
>> In fact, every one of these could easily have been translated "if one 
>> [does X]" with no loss in meaning.  And so:
>>
>>   bIQaHchugh, yIQaH!
>>   bIQaHmo', yIQaH!
>>
>>   vay' DaQaHchugh, yIQaH!
>>   vay' DaQaHmo', yIQaH!

ter'eS:
>In the midst of all the excellent advices, the "can" part has gotten
>lost:
>   vay' DaQaHlaHchugh, yIQaH!
>   vay' DaQaHlaHmo', yIQaH!

ghay'cha'!  HIvqa' veqlargh.

Voragh:
>> Unfortunately {-laH} and {-lu'} are both Type 5 suffixes and can't be
>> used together.  There are, of course, the "totally artificial, made-up
>> suffixes" {-luH} or {-la'} (described in TKD p.181) but, as Okrand warns:
>>
>>   No one accepts such constructions as grammatical; their
>>   inappropriateness, the way they grate on the Klingon ear,
>>   is exactly what gives them elocutionary clout. A visitor
>>   may hear one of these odd suffixes occasionally, but, as
>>   with other intentionally ungrammatical forms, it is best
>>   to avoid using them until one is extremely comfortable
>>   with the nuances of Klingon style.          [TKD 181]

qurgh:
>KGT DaghItlh 'e' DaHech, qar'a'?
>My TKD has Indirect Objects on page 181...

ghuy'cha'!!  lughba' <<KGT 181>>.  cha'logh HIvqa' veqlargh!


QInmey vIlabpa' QInwIj vIlaDnISqa'chu'!
(I really should proofread my posts before sending them!)
 
--
Voragh                          
Canon Master of the Klingons






Back to archive top level