tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Apr 08 21:14:09 2015

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: [Tlhingan-hol] Using betleH vocabulary (was RE: Klingon Word of the Day: jIrmoH)

Robyn Stewart ( [KLI Member] [Hol po'wI']

qep'a'Daq je Marc OkrandvaD mu'tlheghmey vIcha'laH 'ach nuSuchtaHvIS De' 'ol 'e' vIqapchugh jImaybe'. yu'lu'DI' ghu' tIvbe'ba' vaj vIta'be'.

On 8 April 2015 at 21:59, Robyn Stewart <> wrote:
> I wish I could run sentences like these past Maltz.

qepHomvaD bIjeSchugh 'eb DaSuqlaH. :-)

> betleH vIchaQ.
> jIchaQ.
> gholwI' qabDaq jIchaQ.
> gholwI' qabvaD jIchaQ.
> betleH vIngol.
> yIngol! (said while helping someone carry a table through a door).
> My interpretation is that all of these are useable:

wa' DoS wIqIp.

> that is that a betleH is
> the expected and implied object of the verb, such that when no object 
> is specified it is assumed to be about a betleH, but that the action 
> could be understood for other objects, just as if I told my partner to "steer right"
> or "pitch up" when carrying the hypothetical table.

ghaytan nIyajbe' nuv law', 'ach Duyajbej 'op. 'orwI' chaHbe' HochHom nuvpu''e'.

'ach tlhoS SuvwI'pu' chaH Hoch tlhInganpu''e'. SuvwI' mu'mey Dalo'DI'
ghaytan nIyaj.

> It can be frustrating when we have specialized vocabulary but lack 
> generic terms.  The temptation is to use the specialized word 
> metaphorically, but I don't want to dilute its true meaning.

I think that while Marc Okrand often defines a verb to be specific to a situation, they are intended to be more generic than their definitions. But he doesn't give the most generic definition to give himself wriggle room to change his mind later.

Consider the following verb pairs:
{lol} v. be in a stance (people, animals, etc.), or be in an attitude (aircraft, maybe spacecraft) {tor} v. kneel (people, animals, etc.), or pitch (aircraft) {ron} v. be rolling (dice), or roll/tilt (aircraft) {DIj} v. paint with a pigment stick, or slide one sword blade along another

Based on {lol}, {tor}, I'd expect {ron}, {Der}, {Dav}, {jer}, and {jIm} to apply to people and animals. Or, at least, I would understand such a usage if someone else were to use them that way. Similarly, the example of {DIj} implies to me that {chaQ} and {ngol} are also applicable to other than blade weapons. My theory is that the definitions we have for these verbs are partial definitions, and that they are more general, but of course that's just an assumption on my part.


Tlhingan-hol mailing list

Back to archive top level