[1700] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: Object-verb relationship Questions
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU)
Fri Oct 15 13:08:00 1993
Reply-To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@klingon.east.sun.com>
From: Paul J. Clegg <cleggp@rpi.edu>
To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@klingon.east.sun.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1993 13:01:55 -0400
>PaulClegg:
>fundamental meaning of "I disagree with you." It describes a conflict
>between the speaker (1st person) and the one-being-spoken-to (2nd person).
>Saying {maQoch}, altho it doesn't have that jigsaw puzzle, exactly fitting,
>relationship, means the same thing.
I see the truth of it now. Of course, now I'd be stuck for trying to figure
out how to say "we disagree with you"... I think "maQoch" is as dubious as
its direct translation "we disagree". Admittedly, it would require some
contextual understanding, but on the surface, is it "we disagree (with each
other)" or "we disagree (we are both disagreeing)". I think Klingon is a
bit more exacting than that, given some of the "non-translatable" affixes
it has. I would think Klingon would be more "exacting".
>If you want to be on the road to fluency (or at least have a good working
>knowledge) of any language, you can't burden yourself with direct
>translations; they don't work. Just try *thinking* in Klingon. You'll
>find this is helpful for learning just about any foreign language.
>
>!@#$%^&*(Guido1)*&^%$#@! --- tlhIngan Hol yIQub
This is good advice, but Klingon doesn't seem to be well suited for "jumping
in and swimming" like that...
...Paul
