[tlhIngan Hol] veQpu' or veQmey ?

Lieven L. Litaer levinius at gmx.de
Thu May 16 06:24:01 PDT 2019

Am 16.05.2019 um 14:54 schrieb mayqel qunen'oS:
> A Star Trek script writer, comes to you and says: I want you to
> translate in klingon, the phrase "kahless, my light".
> Suppose that the "my light" is used metaphorically; would you use
> {qeylIS, tamghaywIj} or {qeylIS, tamghaywI'} ?

That's certainly {tamghaywIj}.

But now, if you really want to go a step further, consider a story of a
planet of people who are called "the lights". So instead of calling the
the ferengie, or the terrans, these are called "the lights." So these
creatures would certainly say {tamghaypu' maH!} and if a tamghay lady
talks to her tamghay husband, she would say {tamghaywI' SoH}.

But that's really very theoretical and a very special case. In the
normal situation (unless there's a known exception) the nouns usually
take their standard suffixes. Here's some strange examples:

{raSmey chaH jupwI'pu''e'}
"My friends are tables"
(tables are still things)

{leghmeH tlhapragh nachDajDaq cha' naghmey tu'lu'.}
"The monster has two stones in his head to see."
(even though it's a body part of that monster)

{yuQvetlhDaq jatlhbogh Sormey vIlegh.}
"I saw speaking trees on that planet."
(even though they are able to speak)

{chay' qamDu' ghaj raS}
"the table has two feet"
(even though theyare not really body parts, the orignal word is so)

So it's not only the question if the thing is able to speak, it's more
the question whether it /usually/ speaks.

Lieven L. Litaer
aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany"

More information about the tlhIngan-Hol mailing list