[86490] in tlhIngan-Hol
RE: Klingon in "Don't copy that 2"
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (a west)
Wed Sep 9 16:51:10 2009
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2009 13:49:16 -0700 (PDT)
From: a west <awest2929@yahoo.com>
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
In-Reply-To: <C305E6BD33E2654DAE1F8F403247B6A6EE94F1DA8B@EVS02.ad.uchicago.edu>
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
--- On Wed, 9/9/09, Steven Boozer <sboozer@uchicago.edu> wrote:
> From: Steven Boozer <sboozer@uchicago.edu>
> Subject: RE: Klingon in "Don't copy that 2"
> To: "'tlhingan-hol@kli.org'" <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
> Date: Wednesday, September 9, 2009, 12:14 PM
> qurgh:
> >In their trailer for the song, they have two Klingons
> talking about
> >copying a CD [...] The line spoken by the Klingon was
> translated by
> >Marc. There are photos of him holding a big board with
> the Klingon's
> >line on it [...] The board he's holding reads:
> > De nib Da chen moH chugh / big koov Ha
> >The translation of the spoke line reads: To duplicate
> data is a great
> >dishonor. Obviously this is supposed to be:
> > De' nIb DachenmoHchugh bIquvHa'
>
> "If you create identical data, you are dishonored."
>
> It's always nice to see more canon, if only four
> words. Was this the only Klingon in the trailer?
> (I don't have a sound card installed in my computer, so I
> can't hear what they're saying.)
>
>
> Miscellaneous thoughts...
>
> 1. It's interesting that Okrand did not use {chenqa'moH}
> "make again" - *{De' Dachenqa'moHchugh} - which he has
> before:
>
> st.k 2/23/98: {chenmoH} "form, make, create" is the
> verb {chen} "build up, take form" plus the Type 4 suffix
> {-moH} "cause". To say "make again", the Type 3 suffix
> {-qa'} "do again" should come before the Type 4 suffix.
> Thus, you should say {vIchenqa'moH} "I make [it] again".
>
> 2. {nIb} "be identical" is more precise than {rap} "be the
> same" for copying computer files, as computers and other
> digital devices are notoriously finicky when the relevant
> files aren't *exactly* the same. Okrand discussed the
> difference between the two in HolQeD:
>
> HQ 13.1:8-9: Using {nIb} carries a connotation of
> preciseness... Thus, it might be used when referring to
> something that can be measured, such as weight, but it is
> not likely to be used with less quantifiable qualities where
> the assertion of sameness is more a judgment... It is never
> improper to use {rap} ["be the same"] even in cases where
> the quality is measurable. [...] {nIb} implies precision...
> and is not likely to be used unless the quality being
> discussed is quantifiable or measurable. {rap}, on the other
> hand, may be used regardless of whether the quality is
> quantifiable.
>
> 3. This gives us a hint on how to refer to replicating
> things: not *{NOUN chenqa'moH} "re-create the NOUN"
> but *{[NOUN nIb chenmoH} "create an identical NOUN".
>
>
>
> --
> Voragh
>
> Canon Master of the Klingons
>
So could the word for "copy" as a noun be nIbwI'?
How would you say "replicator"?
