[86742] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: mech
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Doq)
Sat Oct 31 14:11:34 2009
From: Doq <doq@embarqmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <355A0111-0E8D-413C-875B-6F32DF2021B3@alcaco.net>
Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2009 14:08:53 -0400
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
This is also how I would have used {mech}, had I used it before
discussion. The items being traded are of equal status. One is not the
beneficiary. Consider how you might say, "I'll sell you my betleH for
300 credits." You wouldn't start out with {wejvatlh DeQvaD...}. I'd
say something more like {SoHvaD betleHwIj vIngevqang. wejvatlh DeQ
vIpoQ.}
Depending on the context, I might do something similar with {mech}.
Any of the following would make sense to me:
be'leHlIj vIparHa'. be'leHwIj DaparHa'. be'leHmeymaj DImech 'e'
vIchup. vaj maQuchchoH.
be'leHwIj vImech DaneHchugh, be'leHlIj vIpoQ.
I see the possessive suffixes as very useful for mech, though it
becomes more difficult to clearly express "They traded betleHmey".
Then, I'd use the noun-noun possessive construction instead of the
noun prefix and handle it pretty much the same way.
ghunchu'wI' betleH SuStel betleH je mechta' ghunchu'wI' SuStel je.
or perhaps:
betleHmeychaj mech ghunchu'wI' SuStel je.
Doq
On Oct 28, 2009, at 5:56 PM, ghunchu'wI' wrote:
> On Oct 28, 2009, at 3:17 PM, qurgh lungqIj wrote:
>
>> Do we have any canon on how to use mech?
>> I'm trying to say "I want to trade my X for your Y". Is it as
>> simple as:
>>
>> DaqtaghlIjvaD betleHwIj vImech vIneH
>
> I wouldn't expect this use of English "for" to match the Klingon {-
> vaD}.
> Without specific official guidance, I'd probably consider the things
> being traded as a plural object and say it like this:
>
> DaqtaghlIj betleHwIj je DImech vIneH.
>
> -- ghunchu'wI'
>
>
>
