tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Jan 17 19:45:27 2010
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Hypothetical (reconstructed) vocabulary?
- From: Christopher Doty <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Hypothetical (reconstructed) vocabulary?
- Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2010 19:44:25 -0800
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :from:date:message-id:subject:to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=fIrKJ/NQNtJOn1qkc49brRsl13bkuL+BVvoFsQjcHxM=; b=hdCFgj3TLn39siwJtYCZjSLHuId0/gWyoDJiR8xLaEPc+0Qh4WiX8aMk7AzC/rU8U2 rhsBVhBZeWYoefEwwZJS0yiFXHxpBTbspKKsNjtYDUyI4bxummAlBsqeqyrmO1dwFF1y mK1Y5vk5nJAkWDNUCxuGHVFYw/x/dSE+wV7sQ=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=qEMSslMkJ7T9ydT8DmXprikdz/Z7/MeKaNn81iTaJhKKNI9SEfHSnMjo79pjHvjfSQ BUMiDJtvVXb0BG40tvBI7XDh7WcRsSPAAjXvRFjy9S6V4lQOZt8pyDVyw9kanlr/PSQd SxPC/iXdBUOcVmkDYsw40eVpQ1M59Q2fClxAo=
- In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
- References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
Also meant to comment on this:
*De' compute? (Krankor), process information? (ghunchu'wI') (v.) <
De'wI' computer (from OK?)
One might consider that, since we have <De'> as a noun "information,"
<De'> as an old verb in <De'wI'> might be more like "inform": that is,
<De'wI'> is the thing that informs someone; the focus might not be on
the actual computing, as the English word is, but more on its
practical purpose--providing information.
Chris
On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 19:41, Christopher Doty <[email protected]> wrote:
> Way behind the curve here, apparently (damn school....). A couple of
> additions to the list, mentioned in TKD:
>
> 'ejDo' for starship
> 'ejyo' for Starfleet
>
> Interestingly, we also have some hints of sound change or another
> compound here, as Okrand reckons that <Do'> is probably an old word
> for "space vessel" while the modern word is <Duj>. It thus seems like
> there is either an old for fixed in <Do'>, or that, at some point, the
> compound <'ejDo'> got flipped around to <Do''ej>, and then reduced to
> <Duj>...
>
> I was also thinking not long ago about the person prefixes, which,
> despite being basically unanalyzable at present, still have some hints
> of a more transparent system at some stage past. I'll try to remember
> what I thought, and send it around for consideration...
>
> Chris
>
> On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 17:31, David Trimboli <[email protected]> wrote:
>> 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/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>