[87667] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: Hypothetical (reconstructed) vocabulary?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Christopher Doty)
Sun Jan 17 22:45:49 2010
In-Reply-To: <a1173fff1001171941i25f8b05fx10df32bfbe1e3362@mail.gmail.com>
From: Christopher Doty <suomichris@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2010 19:44:25 -0800
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Also meant to comment on this:
*De' compute? (Krankor), process information? (ghunchu'wI') (v.) <
De'wI' computer (from OK?)
One might consider that, since we have <De'> as a noun "information,"
<De'> as an old verb in <De'wI'> might be more like "inform": that is,
<De'wI'> is the thing that informs someone; the focus might not be on
the actual computing, as the English word is, but more on its
practical purpose--providing information.
Chris
On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 19:41, Christopher Doty <suomichris@gmail.com> wrote:
> Way behind the curve here, apparently (damn school....). A couple of
> additions to the list, mentioned in TKD:
>
> 'ejDo' for starship
> 'ejyo' for Starfleet
>
> Interestingly, we also have some hints of sound change or another
> compound here, as Okrand reckons that <Do'> is probably an old word
> for "space vessel" while the modern word is <Duj>. It thus seems like
> there is either an old for fixed in <Do'>, or that, at some point, the
> compound <'ejDo'> got flipped around to <Do''ej>, and then reduced to
> <Duj>...
>
> I was also thinking not long ago about the person prefixes, which,
> despite being basically unanalyzable at present, still have some hints
> of a more transparent system at some stage past. I'll try to remember
> what I thought, and send it around for consideration...
>
> Chris
>
> On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 17:31, David Trimboli <david@trimboli.name> wrote:
>> On 1/12/2010 8:23 PM, Alex Greene wrote:
>>>>> "That is not so" would be something like "qarbe' Dochvetlh,"
>>>>> "lughbe' Dochvetlh" or "teHbe' Dochvetlh" if I were trying to
>>>>> translate the above sentence. *vajHa' doesn't sit right with me
>>>>> either.
>>>>
>>>> When Maltz balks at something, my impression is that he considers
>>>> it "not the way a Klingon would say it," not that it doesn't make
>>>> sense to him. /We/ completely lack any way to reason along these
>>>> lines.
>>>
>>> It's okay to just say that it's M. Okrand balking at the
>>> construction, and deciding that *vajHa' doesn't sit right with him.
>>
>> But how do you know that's what is happening? I don't believe it is.
>> Okrand likes to include lots of little "'cause that's the way they say
>> it" rules in the language, having nothing to do with whether it "sits
>> right" with him. When he says Maltz balks, he means Maltz balks, not
>> that he balks.
>>
>> --
>> SuStel
>> http://www.trimboli.name/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
