[3149] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: prefixes on pronouns
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU)
Sat Feb 12 18:35:58 1994
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@klingon.East.Sun.COM
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@klingon.East.Sun.COM
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@klingon.East.Sun.COM
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@klingon.East.Sun.COM
Reply-To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@klingon.East.Sun.COM>
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@klingon.East.Sun.COM
From: Mark Reed <Mark.Reed@cad.gatech.edu>
To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@klingon.East.Sun.COM>
Date: Sat, 12 Feb 1994 18:32:47 -0500 (EST)
In-Reply-To: <9402112241.AA15619@codex.com> from "Captain Krankor" at Feb 11, 9
4 03:44:09 pm
\Well, regardless of the mublaHghachqoq of yISoH, I instantly agree that
\marqoS's is the superior translation. majQa'!
qatlho'. Although I was not alone in thinking of {Da} - at least two
of us posted that version, and others probably thought of it without
posting . . .
\So, ok, how would you do one where we really do mean *to be* the thing, not
\just to act like it? Here are versions with yISoH. Any alternatives?
\
\Worf, to Riker, who's vacillating (*again!*) about whether to accept
\yet another promotion to captain of some other ship:
\
\ "HoD yISoHvIpQo'!" 'Don't be afraid to be [a] captain!'
\
\Here, I don't think Da cuts it. We're not talking about behavior, we're
\talking about accepting the rank and actually *being* one.
We're talking about accepting the rank and actually *becoming* one:
HoD yImojvIpQo'!
\How about: Worf, talking to Odo:
\
\ "tlhIngan yISoH!" 'Be a Klingon!'
\
\Here, Worf really *is* telling him to change form {{;-)
And again, the fact that there is a change taking place makes {moj}
appropriate:
tlhIngan yImoj!
\And a perhaps murkier one: Worf giving Data a costuming suggestion
\for the upcoming Halloween party in 10 Forward:
\
\ "HaghmoHwI' yISoH" 'Be a clown.'
\
\We'll leave aside the issue of whether or not HaghmoHwI' is the best
\way to say "clown". {{:-)
I think I'd use {moj} yet again, although it is a bit murkier.
In general, it's hard to use the imperative with "be" in a manner that doesn't
involve a change... If you really are instructing someone to continue to bewhat
they currently are, there might be justification for 'yISoH' (or yISoHtaH,
perhaps)... but I'm hard pressed to contrive a justifying example. I think
rewording avoids this issue in general.
\P.S. HaghmoHwI' yISoH! HaghmoHwI' yISoH! HaghmoHwI' muSHa' qo' Hoch....
\(doesn't scan very well, does it?)
'sokay, neither did my version of "muSHa'ghach Duj". :)
-marqoS
