tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Jun 02 07:55:16 1995

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: {baH} vs {laQ}

According to Alan Anderson:
> 
> jIH:       > lengbogh Dochmey bIH baHlu'bogh Dochmey'e'.
> charghwI': > nuq?
> 
> "Things which are baHed are things which travel."  

Your word order threw me. {Dochmey'e'} should be in the OBJECT
position for {baHlu'bogh} instead of the SUBJECT position.
{lengbogh Dochmey bIH Dochmey'e' baHlu'bogh.}

> My point is that TKD
> gives "torpedo, rocket, missile" as examples of objects for {baH}.  All
> of these are projectiles.  Yes, I do believe that a {baHwI'} is one who
> fires a projectile.  This limits my translation of {baH} to projectiles
> and requires that I find other verbs for other weapons.

So your interpretation is closer to "launch" than "fire" qar'a'?

> Meanwhile, TKD gives {laQ} = fire, energize (e.g., thrusters).  It says
> "e.g." meaning "for example", and not "i.e." meaning "that is".  So one
> doesn't HAVE to be talking about engines when one says {laQ}.  When I'm
> talking about phasers, {laQ} seems to fit perfectly.  If I want to fire
> a pistol, {laQ} applies; if I want to fire a bullet, {baH} applies.  Am
> I making an obvious mistake here?  All of this seems completely logical
> to me.

I could see this, though my own interpretation of {baH} has
been closer to "push the button that makes the target explode".
I'll have to go back and look at ST3. I thought the unfortunate
fellow who was instructed to target engines only was a {baHwI'}.
I thought the instruction given to him was {baH} and I thought
it was a disruptor that blew up the science vessel that Kirk's
son had just beamed down from. Maybe not.

I also thought the exchange with second gunner went something
like:

baHwI', jonta' neH.

yajchu' qaH!

Looks like a busy weekend ahead, but I'll try to look at it.

> -- ghunchu'wI'

charghwI'
-- 

 \___
 o_/ \
 <\__,\
  ">   | Get a grip.
   `   |

Back to archive top level