[3197] in tlhIngan-Hol
Klingon Insults
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU)
Tue Feb 15 16:50:10 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: shoulson@ctr.columbia.edu (Mark E. Shoulson)
To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@klingon.East.Sun.COM>
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 1994 16:46:20 -0500
In-Reply-To: Will Martin's message of Tue, 15 Feb 94 14:01:29 EST <9402151901.A
A22448@uva.pcmail.Virginia.EDU>
>From: Will Martin <whm2m@uva.pcmail.virginia.edu>
>Date: Tue, 15 Feb 94 14:01:29 EST
>On Feb 15, 12:21pm, ataash@u.washington.edu wrote:
>> Subject: Klingon Insults
>First, I want to express my appreciation for these insults. I regard
>them highly, as I do their author. I see much potential for their use.
Same here; these have potential to be really classic lines. My reactions
to these mirrored charghwI''s for the most part/
>Now about a picky detail or two:
>> 3. tIqlIjDaq DuQbogh taj 'e' Danej.
>This should probably be {tIqlIjDaq DuQ taj 'e' Danej} [You seek that a
>dagger stabs the place occupied by your heart]. What you have written is
>grammatically missing a verb, since the {'e'} expects a complete sentence
>preceeding it and the {-bogh} makes the only preceeding verb a dependent
>clause. It means something like [You seek that a dagger which stabs at your
>heart....] Can you feel what is missing here? If you remove the "which" it is
>more complete.
>You could probably lose the {-Daq} here, too. The dagger stabs the
>heart, right? {tIqlIj DuQ taj 'e' Danej}. [You seek that a dagger stabs your
>heart.] DaparHa''a'?
Actually, I thought something like that too, in which case I didn't like
the idea of "nej", something like "DaneHlaw'" or "'e' DaqSmoH DanIDlaw'"
and so on would be better.
BUT, I believe the intent was to make this like the other one about not
being able to sense, i.e. "you couldn't find a dagger if it was stabbed
clean through your heart!" Keeping the sentence structure the same, how
about:
tIqlIj DuQtaHbogh taj'e' DanejtaH
You're still/continuously looking for a dagger that's stabbing (maybe
DuQta'bogh, that has stabbed) your heart.
>> 4. lamDaq QuchlIj DaHabchoHta'.
>>
>> Literally: You have smoothed your forehead in the dirt. This accuses
>> someone of excessive servility, putting their heads in the dirt so much
>> they have become smooth. This has been known to start bar-clearing brawls
>> in a matter of seconds.
>That #4 is my favorite. Except that {Hab} is intransitive, being used as
>if transitive. Try {DaHabchoHmoHpu'}. I took the liberty of assuming the act
>of making smooth was not intentional.
Yeah, you need the -moH. Not sure about the -choH. Keep the "-ta'"
instead of "-pu'", it's more insulting. You can be really good and use
"rIntaH": you've smoothed your forehead out, and it's done and there's
nothing you can do about it. Nyeah.
>Very inventive. I like them much.
What he said
>charghwI'
~mark
