[1585] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: vIDub'a'
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU)
Thu Sep 16 15:39:05 1993
Reply-To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@village.boston.ma.us>
From: Will Martin <whm2m@uva.pcmail.virginia.edu>
To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@village.boston.ma.us>
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 93 13:55:04 EDT
Matt,
Please do not take this to be unkind criticism. I humbly suggest that my
skills at READING Klingon are so meager that I am unable to consistently
figure out what you are saying. As I drag my poor, thick skull through your
words, the parts that sink in are more often the probable errors than the
meanings. Even then, I sometimes screw up dealing with the errors. Meanwhile,
here are a couple notes that might prove helpful in future writings:
> wej HolDaq vIngeD 'ach
"Not yet I be easy in Klingon however."?
I might have expressed it as:
wej 'ach jIHvaD ngeD tlhIngan Hol .
or perhaps:
jIHvaD ngeDlI'be' tlhIngan Hol.
> nem tlhIngan HolDaq Krankor parHa' vIjatlh 'e' vIHonbe'
"parHa'" means "like" as in "to have affection for", not as in "to be similar
to". It is a verb, opposite meaning to "par". I'm also a little uncertain
about "HolDaq". I tend to think of "Daq" as being a more literal reference to
a physical space. True gramarians could offer a more authoritarian base.
> ngoQ jIcher'eghbej
I would have expected:
ngoQ vIcherbej
The "'egh" could fit as a reference to an indirect object, but if you
really wanted to convey that, it might be better to say:
jIHvaD ngoQ vIcherbej
That way, you don't obliterate the verbal link to the direct object
"ngoQ".
-- charghwI'
