[2445] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: A translation question
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU)
Mon Jan 3 21:39:56 1994
Reply-To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@klingon.East.Sun.COM>
From: nsn@vis.mu.OZ.AU (Nick NICHOLAS)
To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@klingon.East.Sun.COM>
Date: Tue, 4 Jan 94 13:37:52 EDT
In-Reply-To: <01H792M0HMOY000FH4@opus.mco.edu>; from "trI'Qal" at Jan 3, 94 4:0
3 pm
batlh choja', trI'Qal quv:
=nuqneH Hoch.
qavan.
= Yes, I am aware that I owe several people some postings (I have not
=forgotten, Mr. Nickolas!),
*smile* jIHvaD *mISter* ponglu'! vImerlu'! ;)
= Can an exclamation (maj) be used in a sentence this way?
If it is, then it's no longer an exclamation, it's an adverb. While majghoS
has been used for "welcome", I think this is a liberty too great.
= Can 'oHtaH be used to mean "it is" in this sense? (The pabpo' invloved
=gave a very emphatic "no" to this question.)
The anonymous one is right. If it was a phrase in my Shakespeare, I'd treat
it as:
ghahlu' tlhIngan'e'; QaQ ghu'vam
(one is a Klingon; this situation is good).
What you're really trying to convey is:
GOOD(KLINGON(X)).
If 'e' were allowed as a subject, this would translate as:
*ghahlu' tlhIngan'e'; QaQ 'e'
The English use of "it" where I've put 'e' is a quirk of... well, not just
English, but it's a quirk none the less, of the type transformational
linguists like to explain away with the voodoo that they do do so well.
== == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == ==
Nick Nicholas, Breather {le'o ko na rivbi fi'inai palci je tolvri danlu}
nsn@krang.vis.mu.oz.au -- Miguel Cervantes tr. Jorge LLambias
