[3330] in tlhIngan-Hol
RE: Meaning in Klingon
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU)
Thu Feb 17 22:47:02 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
Reply-To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@klingon.East.Sun.COM>
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@klingon.East.Sun.COM
From: Will Martin <whm2m@uva.pcmail.virginia.edu>
To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@klingon.East.Sun.COM>
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 94 11:10:01 EST
On Feb 16, 3:44pm, ANTIWOLF@vax1.bemidji.msus.edu wrote:
...
> I believe that is what I said. In English, love is a verb, in Klingon
> it is a noun. So, in English, the noun "beloved" is derived from
> the verb "love", while in Klingon the verb for "to love" is derived
> from the noun "bang."
>
> Rob LentneS
The problem with this is that Klingon has no "verbalizer" equivalent to
its two nominalizers. You can't "derive" a verb from a noun in Klingon. Many
nouns derive from verbs. Verbs get a lot more attention than nouns in the
structures, so we are left to build the particular tuned verb to fit the
context of the swiss-army-knife "love" verb in English. When the English
says, "I love you," you need to decide whether this means "I like you a lot,"
"I want you," "I care a lot about you," "I want you to have sex with me,"
etc. and then translate THAT into Klingon. Face it. "I love you," is one of
those vague, wittering, beat-around-the-bush, don't-commit-to-one-meaning
sentences that a Klingon just wouldn't say.
charghwI'
