[93218] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] being capable of language suffix class -
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Lieven Litaer)
Thu May 10 16:14:22 2012
Date: Thu, 10 May 2012 22:14:05 +0200
From: Lieven Litaer <lieven.litaer@web.de>
To: "tlhingan-hol@kli.org" <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
In-Reply-To: <CA+7zAmPoYb1w+bDjK56G6a=5yDd8oGuStcnFqhX8W24syiQ31w@mail.gmail.com>
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@stodi.digitalkingdom.org
Some of the examples are good, but I don't agree with others.
For instance, I always say {latlhpu'} when talking about "the others",
when they're people.
> Qov:
> > I think wIvmey/wIvpu' for animate choices is akin to "It is my
> choice" vs. "He is my choice."
I don't agree here, I see the word "choice" as an inanimate, not living
being. It is an act of a decision or choosing, it's not the thing being
chosen. I would say "He is my choice" like {wIvwIj ghaH}. You are
"referring" to that person, but the person is not "a choice". (If you
use the person as a chair, you would say {quSwIj ghaH})
For wa'DIch, it's something else. It's some kind of a title, like {SoS}
or {HoD}. {cha'DIchwI' ghaH} "He is my Chadich."
> you don't think it's weird if someone referred to his {wIvpu'} if it
> refers to a group of people?
This sounds wrong to me, it sounds like a bunch of decisions, which are
able to speak.
Just fooling around, I just tried other words:
"You are my phaser"
I would surely use {pu'wIj} here. A phaser is a thing. If I call you a
phaser, then I call you a thing.
BTW, I'm not talking about neologisms or technical things. Rules might
be different there, like some people say "mouses" or "foots".
I think all of this is just my sense of klingon language, I didn't find
any canon examples.
Lieven.
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
Tlhingan-hol@stodi.digitalkingdom.org
http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
