[86611] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: na'ran rur [Re: Klingon WOTD: na' (verb)]
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (David Trimboli)
Thu Oct 1 14:13:48 2009
Date: Thu, 01 Oct 2009 14:12:09 -0400
From: David Trimboli <david@trimboli.name>
In-reply-to:
<C305E6BD33E2654DAE1F8F403247B6A601010AA40200@EVS02.ad.uchicago.edu>
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Steven Boozer wrote:
>>> Also, don't forget the pronoun {'e'}: na'ran rurbogh Soj luSop
>>> tera'ngan 'e' lutIv.
>
> Before KGT came out some people used *{wIbHa'} "un-sour/bitter/tart")
> for "be sweet". (From CK we know that Klingons drink {Dargh wIb}
> "sour tea" but many humans, myself included, prefer sweet tea.) If
> qe'San wanted to be absolutely clear that he was talking about the
> taste of the {na'ran} fruit rather than its appearance, color or some
> other feature, he could adapt the simile formula {wIbHa'; na'ran
> rur}:
>
> na'ran rurbogh Soj'e' wIbHa' luSop tera'ngan 'e' lutIv.
>
> though I think this is overkill. (And yes, I did tag {Soj} with
> {-'e'} because the sentence is getting a little complicated now with
> the addition of yet another verb. YMMV.)
I don't agree with using {wIbHa'}; I don't think sweet is an opposite or
undoing of sour/bitter/tart. But if you were to use it and mark the head
of the relative clause with -'e', you would have to put it the -'e' in
the right place:
na'ran rurbogh Soj wIbHa''e' luSop tera'ngan 'e' lutIv
--
SuStel
tlhIngan Hol MUSH
http://trimboli.name/mush
