tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Jan 12 16:58:45 2010

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: Hypothetical (reconstructed) vocabulary?

David Trimboli ([email protected]) [KLI Member] [Hol po'wI']

On 1/12/2010 3:58 PM, Alex Greene wrote:
>> HQ 4.4:  Whether this {-Ha'} can be added to all
>> adverbials is not clear. The notes taken while working with Maltz
>> indicate that he balked at {vajHa'} ("not thus?") but accepted
>> {Do'Ha'} "unfortunately". Information on other adverbials has not
>> yet been uncovered, though it is probably in the notes
>> somewhere.
 >
> vaj and chaq seem to be adverbials with a different usage to the
> others.
>
> Adverbials such as nom, QIt, pay' and SIbI' modify the activity of
> the main verb: QIt jagh HoH SuvwI' naS; pay' Heghpu' SaqwI'ghom Hoch,
> or whatever. vaj and chaq do not. They seem to be used in the manner
> of "Thus {sentence}" or "Perhaps {sentence};" the activity of the
> verb in that sentence does not alter in the way that it does for pIj
> or pe'vIl.
>
> "That is not so" would be something like "qarbe' Dochvetlh," "lughbe'
> Dochvetlh" or "teHbe' Dochvetlh" if I were trying to translate the
> above sentence. *vajHa' doesn't sit right with me either.

When Maltz balks at something, my impression is that he considers it 
"not the way a Klingon would say it," not that it doesn't make sense to 
him. /We/ completely lack any way to reason along these lines.

-- 
SuStel
http://www.trimboli.name/

Back to archive top level