[1927] in tlhIngan-Hol
Conjunctions
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU)
Wed Nov 3 11:42:27 1993
Reply-To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@klingon.east.sun.com>
From: shoulson@ctr.columbia.edu (Mark E. Shoulson)
To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@klingon.east.sun.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1993 11:26:07 -0500
In-Reply-To: Nick Nicholas's message of Wed, 3 Nov 1993 09:58:00 +1000 (GMT) <1
99311022358.AA27809@mullian.ee.mu.OZ.AU>
>From: Nick Nicholas <nsn@mullian.ee.mu.OZ.AU>
>Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1993 09:58:00 +1000 (GMT)
>To DSTRADER@delphi.com respond I thus:
>#But probably the most aggrivating of all is the fact that Okrand simply
>#omitted the {lu-} prefix in two places where I'm sure they must be:
>#"They don't serve Romulan Ale to Terrans - too potent."
>#{tera'nganvaD romuluS HIq jabQo' - HoSghajqu'}
>#If the subject is indeed {chaH} (understood), then it should be:
>#{tera'nganvaD romuluS HIq lujabQo' - HoSghajqu'}
>Ah, but how says the subject need be chaH? Why not ghaH --- the bartender?
>I was going to suggest the subject was 'one' -- "one doesn't serve" ---
>but unless I'm mistaken, the Klingon for 'one' is -lu', which isn't in
>there either. Still, I'd hardly call this a mistake: there's no reason
>at all why the English idiom 'they' (after all, there's one bartender)
>need translate literally into Hol.
I thought of that, actually, but "chaH" made a lot of sense to me, so I
thought it might be safe to say that it was, in fact, "chaH". 'course, if
it is "ghaH", then we're back to square one again, since "ghaH"-subject
prefixes don't distinguish between singular and plural objects.
~mark
