tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Sep 10 17:39:25 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"

Doq (

Even stranger is that he didn't use {qon}. I'd think of it as more  
appropriate, since "make" is one of those overused English words, like  
"go" and "have" that stand in for more specific words when we're too  
lazy to think of the better verb.

I'd personally be happier if the root {chen} were used more instead of  
universally using it as a component of {chenmoH}, just because while  
lots of words often use {moH}, {chen} is almost exclusively used with  
it. It just don't seem riiight.


On Sep 9, 2009, at 3:14 PM, Steven Boozer wrote:

> 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

Back to archive top level