[2688] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: {-ghach}
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU)
Fri Jan 21 09:02:03 1994
Reply-To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@klingon.East.Sun.COM>
From: creede@eskimo.com (Creede Lambard)
To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@klingon.East.Sun.COM>
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 1994 05:55:44 -0800
>Assuming Klingons existed, they would probably break the rules whenever
>they pleased. In fact, Marc Okrand implied as much in the introduction.
>Thus it would be perfectly acceptable to talk in a specialized
variation
>of Klingon to any friends you have that speak Klingon, as long as they
>knew what you were saying.
>
>However . . .
True enough, and something that should probably be factored into the
language somewhere. However, there is and should be "a" standard version
of
tlhIngan Hol, which is what we scientists are trying to discover.
However
however :D, due to the very nature of things (since TKD comes right out
and says that "official" Hol changes with the ascension of a new
emperor,
which I believe would probably happen with astonishing frequency), this
is
like trying to nail Jell-O to the wall.
>Since I have no athority here,
>I cannot create policy.
No, actually, look at it as, you have as much authority here to create
policy as anyone else. :D
>consider the subsentance "qama' qIppu'bogh yaS". Does it say "the
>officer who hit the prisoner" or "the prisoner whom was his by the
>officer"?
TKD 6.2.3 translates qIppu'bogh yaS as "the officer who hit him," so I
vote for going with OVS and calling yaS the subject of the sentence. If
so, any votes on how to say "the prisoner who was hit by the officer"?
Normally I'd just rewrite something like that -- passive tense seems
so un-Klingon. I would think they'd tend to look at who did things than
who had things done to them -- but I'm doing this without my glasses on
early in the morning. :D Maybe later.
-- Creede
jIjatlhta'
