tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Sep 09 13:50:51 2009

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

RE: Klingon in "Don't copy that 2"

a west (awest2929@yahoo.com)




--- On Wed, 9/9/09, Steven Boozer <sboozer@uchicago.edu> wrote:

> From: Steven Boozer <sboozer@uchicago.edu>
> Subject: RE: Klingon in "Don't copy that 2"
> To: "'tlhingan-hol@kli.org'" <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
> Date: Wednesday, September 9, 2009, 12:14 PM
> qurgh:
> >In their trailer for the song, they have two Klingons
> talking about
> >copying a CD [...] The line spoken by the Klingon was
> translated by
> >Marc. There are photos of him holding a big board with
> the Klingon's
> >line on it [...]  The board he's holding reads: 
> >  De nib Da chen moH chugh / big koov Ha
> >The translation of the spoke line reads: To duplicate
> data is a great
> >dishonor.  Obviously this is supposed to be: 
> >  De' nIb DachenmoHchugh bIquvHa'
> 
> "If you create identical data, you are dishonored."
> 
> It's always nice to see more canon, if only four
> words.  Was this the only Klingon in the trailer? 
> (I don't have a sound card installed in my computer, so I
> can't hear what they're saying.)
> 
> 
> Miscellaneous thoughts...
> 
> 1. It's interesting that Okrand did not use {chenqa'moH}
> "make again" - *{De' Dachenqa'moHchugh} - which he has
> before:
> 
> st.k 2/23/98:  {chenmoH} "form, make, create" is the
> verb {chen} "build up, take form" plus the Type 4 suffix
> {-moH} "cause". To say "make again", the Type 3 suffix
> {-qa'} "do again" should come before the Type 4 suffix.
> Thus, you should say {vIchenqa'moH} "I make [it] again".
> 
> 2. {nIb} "be identical" is more precise than {rap} "be the
> same" for copying computer files, as computers and other
> digital devices are notoriously finicky when the relevant
> files aren't *exactly* the same.  Okrand discussed the
> difference between the two in HolQeD:
> 
> HQ 13.1:8-9:  Using {nIb} carries a connotation of
> preciseness... Thus, it might be used when referring to
> something that can be measured, such as weight, but it is
> not likely to be used with less quantifiable qualities where
> the assertion of sameness is more a judgment... It is never
> improper to use {rap} ["be the same"] even in cases where
> the quality is measurable. [...] {nIb} implies precision...
> and is not likely to be used unless the quality being
> discussed is quantifiable or measurable. {rap}, on the other
> hand, may be used regardless of whether the quality is
> quantifiable.
> 
> 3. This gives us a hint on how to refer to replicating
> things:  not *{NOUN chenqa'moH} "re-create the NOUN"
> but *{[NOUN nIb chenmoH} "create an identical NOUN".
> 
> 
>  
> --
> Voragh             
>             
> Canon Master of the Klingons
> 

So could the word for "copy" as a noun be nIbwI'?

How would you say "replicator"?










Back to archive top level