tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Jan 12 17:32:17 2010

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

• Index by Date
• Index by Thread
• Index by Author

Re: Hypothetical (reconstructed) vocabulary?

David Trimboli ([email protected])

• From: David Trimboli <[email protected]>
• Subject: Re: Hypothetical (reconstructed) vocabulary?
• Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 20:31:28 -0500
• In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
• References: <[email protected]>
• User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.9.1.5) Gecko/20091204 Thunderbird/3.0

On 1/12/2010 8:23 PM, Alex Greene wrote:
>>> "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.
>
> It's okay to just say that it's M. Okrand balking at the
> construction, and deciding that *vajHa' doesn't sit right with him.

But how do you know that's what is happening? I don't believe it is. 
Okrand likes to include lots of little "'cause that's the way they say 
it" rules in the language, having nothing to do with whether it "sits 
right" with him. When he says Maltz balks, he means Maltz balks, not 
that he balks.

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

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Hypothetical (reconstructed) vocabulary?
    • From: Christopher Doty <[email protected]>

• References:
  • Re: Hypothetical (reconstructed) vocabulary?
    • From: Alex Greene <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: Hypothetical (reconstructed) vocabulary?
• Next by Date: Today is a good day to discuss grammar
• Previous by thread: Re: Hypothetical (reconstructed) vocabulary?
• Next by thread: Re: Hypothetical (reconstructed) vocabulary?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

Back to archive top level