tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Nov 16 06:23:21 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Q
- From: [email protected] (michiel uitdehaag)
- Subject: Re: Q
- Date: Thu, 16 Nov 1995 15:22:05 +0100 (CET)
>\ pIqaD qaq law' *Kirk* qaq puS.
>\
>\ charghwI'
>jIQochbe'. 'ach Dochvam vItlhobnIS:
>``The pIqaD is more preferable than Kirk''? Hmmm. The English gloss,
>at least, is patently redundant. Do we have any canon evidence of 'qaq' being
>used this way? The definition in TKD ("be preferable") seems inherently
>comparative, not requiring the law'/puS construction. There's no
>indication of how to express the thing to which the subject is preferable,
>but it seems a logical role to be filled by the object: {pIqaD qaq *Kirk*}.
>
>cha' DeQwIj.
>
>-marqoS
The two don't mean the same:
{pIqad qaq law' *Kirk* qaq puS} means that if I should have a preference for
Kirk and {pIqad}, which I have BTW, above other things, I would choose
{pIqad}instead of Kirk to do with whatever I was talking about (??? {{:)
{pIqad qaq *Kirk*} means, IHMO, that Kirk is preferable {pIqad}. Take that in a
more comprehensible form and I get: Kirk looks a bit like {pIqad}. What I
gather from the various discussions, I'd think Kirk would not be pleased with
this. *grin* {{:)
Moreover, the sentence is incorrect. I think you should use {qaq} when some-one
asks you:'What do you like, {pIqad} or Kirk'. Then you'd answer:'{pIqad} is
preferred'. Apparently {qaq} doesn't (easily (yes this is a disclaimer)) take
an object.
Same with for instance {chuv}/'be left over'. I could say: {jIchuv}/ I am left
over. I couldn't say: {*Kirk* vIchuv}/ I am left over Kirk (????) This
completely goes beyond the meaning of the verb {chuv} IMHO.
jejQIb
Mighty Klingon Master of Arms onboard the USS Matrix NCC-2296, although seeking
reunion with his Klingon brotherhood through secret subspace-communications.