[84659] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: ngoy'
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (David Trimboli)
Tue May 13 08:52:06 2008
Date: Tue, 13 May 2008 08:49:24 -0400
From: David Trimboli <david@trimboli.name>
In-reply-to: <7.0.1.0.2.20080512233842.024b3818@columbus.rr.com>
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Rich Timpone wrote:
> While ngoy' does fit the concept I am thinking of, I am not sure how
> one would reference the noun form of responsibility. I suspect it
> may not be the same term and may be a variation of ngoy' or a
> different term entirely (more along the lines of veS and Qoj than ta'
> or yoD that I referenced in my previous note). If you have thoughts
> on this as well, I would love to hear them.
Because "responsibility" is an abstract concept, it doesn't exist as a
noun (or verb) in nature. Looking for the "noun form" of
"responsibility" in nature doesn't make sense.
Remember that languages often express some concepts differently. In this
case, Klingon employs {ngoy'} where English uses both a noun
("responsibility") and a verb ("be responsible"). Don't worry that
English uses a noun here; just use the best tools available in Klingon
to get the point across accurately.
The child is my responsibility.
puqvaD jIngoy'.
You have responsibility for your own luggage.
teplIjvaD bIngoy'; latlh tepvaD bIngoy'be'.
--
SuStel
Stardate 8365.5
