tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Oct 02 09:48:53 2015

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: [Tlhingan-hol] "Like that".

De'vID (

On 30 September 2015 at 18:51, Will Martin <> wrote:
> This morning, walking to work, I noticed a car turning around in the street
> and doing a really bad job of it. I thought, “Why is he driving like that?”
> Then, as I often do when talking to myself like that, I thought about how
> I’d say it in Klingon…
> … until I realized that I don’t know how to say it in Klingon. At least not
> as an equivalent question. I can obviously stretch the verb “pilot” to say
> {qatlh ‘orlI’…} and then I don’t know how to say, “like that.”
> I considered saying {Huj ‘orlI’ghach.} I could even turn it into a question.
> {qatlh Huj ‘orlI’ghach?}

Some suggestions:
'ortaHvIS qatlh qoH Da?
'ortaHvIS qatlh chechwI' rur?
'ortaHvIS qatlh mIwqoqvetlh nab?
'ortaHvIS qatlh Deghlaw' DeghwI'?

> Suddenly, I realized that there’s a relationship between adjectives and
> adverbs that can massively expand Klingon vocabulary in the area of adverbs.
> We don’t have a lot of them. We can’t say, for example, “He is walking
> weirdly.” But we can say {taQ yItlI’ghach.}

yIttaHvIS taQ. yIttaHvIS taQwI' rur. yIttaHvIS taQ mIwDaj.

> We don’t have an equivalent mechanism for turning nouns into verbs, so we
> can’t use adverbs like {nom} or {QIt} to describe a fast car or a slow
> computer. We can fall back on applying it to verbs describing what the noun
> is doing quickly or slowly, but how do I say “I want a faster computer,”?
> I’m tempted to say {De’wI’ vIneHbogh nom law’ De’wI’ vIghajbogh nom puS.}
> but that doesn’t work because {nom} is not an adjective.

You can get away without using {nom} by using {Do} for things which
are actually moving:
Duj vIneHbogh Do tIn law' Duj vIghajbogh Do tIn puS.

That doesn't apply to computers, however. Maybe some can do something
with {chaDvay'}.

> nom vumlaH De’wI’ vIneghbogh ‘ach reH QIt vum De’wI’wIj.
> Well, that assumes that we can use two adverbs on one verb, and we don’t
> really have license to do that. I guess I could say:
> nom vumlaH De’wI’ vIneHbogh ‘ach QIt vumtaH De’wI’wIj.

Qu' ta'taHvIS De'wI' vIneHbogh poH ngaj law' De'wI'wIj poH ngaj puS.

> It works, but it’s kind of sad.
> Or “We need our fastest runner to deliver this message.”
> {QInvam wIHIjnIS. qetchu’ ‘Iv?}
> Weak, but I guess it works.

qetwI'pu'ma''e' wa' nuv Do tIn law' Hoch tIn puS. QInvam HIj 'e' wIpoQ.


Tlhingan-hol mailing list

Back to archive top level