[Tlhingan-hol] nuq bop bom: 'ay' cha'vatlh wejmaH wej: pumDI' lojmIt

[Rohan Fenwick - QeS 'utlh]

ghItlhpu' Qov, jatlh:
> 233: pumDI' lojmIt

jIjang, jIjatlh:
> Were you aiming for the literal-metaphorical duality with this title? If
> so, it's very neatly done - majQa'

mujang Qov, jatlh:
> I try to have dual meanings for most titles.

I've picked up on some of them before but didn't know it was something you
were doing that often.

 taH:
> joy'wI' pa'vo' ghoS vajar, ghutar je.

jIH:
> So qImyal doesn't have a dedicated joy'meH pa'? I am disappoint. :)

Qov:
> I'm confused why you think she doesn't.

If it's a dedicated torture space kept permanently furnished with torture
devices I'd have expected {joy'meH pa'}, paralleling {SopmeH pa'} and
{QongmeH Duj}. I thought your phrasing of it as {joy'wI' pa'} was unusual
(though perfectly fine), so I assumed you meant it to deliberately give
a slightly different nuance. My mistake.

Qov:
> bIt vajar. Hung patmey law' ghaj qImyal jatlh qaH'eng,

jIH:
> Is this meant to be a direct quote or an indirect one? If indirect I'd
> expect to see 'e' jatlh rather than just jatlh alone.

Qov:
> I think others would jump on me for 'e' jatlh. Klingon doesn't really do
> indirect speech.

Really? Puzzling that people might find 'e' maq acceptable but 'e' jatlh
not. We don't have any canon for it, but there's a vague hint from HQ7:4
it might be possible:

MO: If it's a direct quotation, I would. Yes. If it's an indirect question...How would you do indirect quotation?WM: Is there such a beast as indirect quotation in Klingon?MO: That's a good question.WM: Would that be something handled with the pronoun {'e'}?MO: It could.


But there's then several lines of confusion between Will and Marc over what
constitutes an indirect quotation, and the issue itself is never quite
answered... I guess I just think if you can Qub or tlhob or 'Ip something
that can take an 'e', you should be able to jatlh it as well.

> As it gives you pause, I'll make it ... 'e' maq qaH'eng.

maj. vIparHa'.

Qov:
> pay' vay' qaw vajar: not Hota'ro' ngaghmeH tlhobta' vajar.

jIH:
> I'm not sure I like the {X-meH tlhob} construction; it feels a lot like
> an Englishism, "he asked to X" rendered directly into Klingon. It might
> just be my instincts, of course; I'd've gone with ngagh 'e' tlhob.

Qov:
> I'll think about that one.

As I say, it's instinct, nothing more. Your later explanation does make
sense and the need for having the overt aspect suffix is as good a reason
as any. Just ignore me, I have too many opinions sometimes. :/

Qov:
> jatlh vajar, «qa'chajDaq lunabtaH[360].

jIH:
> We know from KGT that qa' takes -pu' in the plural: ghe'torvo' narghDI'
> qa'pu' "when spirits escape from Gre'thor".

Qov:
> They're a different kind of spirit, though. They don't have bodies. Not
> sure why this makes a difference to me.

Fair enough. To me the qa' is very nearly the aspect of the person that
makes them -pu'-able in the first place: the bit that's intelligent,
conscious, and language-capable.

Qov:
> pa' lu'elDI' Dachlaw' qImyal. pa' DojmoH Dochmey wagh.

jIH:
> Ugh... if this were in English I'd tell you to buy a thesaurus. :P "The
> expensive things" seems a bit blah. You don't like 'aH "paraphernalia"?

Qov:
> 'aH I prefer for other contexts, like Dochmey related to a task, or more
> gatherable Dochmey. I'm happy with Dochmey here because it's through
> vajar's eyes and he doesn't see a lot of this kind of thing.

Understandable. :) I guess I'm just biased against Doch because it gets so
much abuse at times, and as a result I find it as semantically bleached in
Klingon as "thing" is in English.

majQa'taH! (HIja', pabHa' 'e' vISov. jISaHbe'chu'.)

QeS 'utlh