[2448] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: A translation question
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU)
Tue Jan 4 13:57:33 1994
Reply-To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@klingon.East.Sun.COM>
From: Will Martin <whm2m@uva.pcmail.virginia.edu>
To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@klingon.East.Sun.COM>
Date: Tue, 4 Jan 94 13:49:28 EST
On Jan 3, 9:54pm, DSTRADER@delphi.com wrote:
> Subject: Re: A translation question
>
> "It is good to be a Klingon." (?)
...
> Even so, I myself would try:
> {QaQ tlhIngan ghaHghach} = "His being a Klingon is good."
{ghaHghach}? Hello! Where are the grammarians when you REALLY need them?
I've been wrong enough times to recognize this as a gaping opportunity to be
wrong again, but it just seems to be stretching things too far to nominalize
a pronoun being used as a verb. The idea just seems perverse.
Laying aside all my old arguements about overuse of "to be" as a crutch
for beginners, and all my old arguements about -ghach being overused as a
crutch for beginners I would probably interpret {QaQ tlhIngan ghaHghach} as
"A Klingon's being is good," much as humans say 'a human being is good'. You
are nominalizing the verb to be, creating a word that parallels "being" as a
noun. A being. A creature. Meanwhile, a Klingon doesn't just BE. A Klingon
DOES! A Klingon LIVES! The entire language is geared toward that. That's why
verbs have 9 suffix classes plus rovers plus a prefix while nouns have only
five classes of suffix, and other words are even less significant. ACTION! A
lone verb easily forms a complete sentence. A noun alone is just a word.
vIparqu'. vuDHomwIj neH vIja'lI'.
-- charghwI'
