tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Dec 18 17:25:18 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: <<yIngachuqegh>>
- From: [email protected] (Alan Anderson)
- Subject: Re: <<yIngachuqegh>>
- Date: Wed, 18 Dec 1996 20:25:41 -0500
ja; joSepuS:
>Given that <<nga'chuq>> and <<ngaghchuq>> would have exactly the same
>meaning by any interpretation, and that the only source for <<ngagh>> is
>a spoken one (PK), it seems a little legalistic to say that they are
>not different spellings/misspellings of the same word.
nIbbe' <nga'chuq> <ngaghchuq> je vIchovDI' jIH.
"Mate with" and "have sex (with one another)" have a clear distinction
in my mind.
>It is of course possible that they are indeed two different words with
>the same meaning but different stress. Like the difference between <mate>
>and <f**k>.
It looks like you yourself have found an interpretation where they do
not have "exactly the same meaning" after all! :-)
>There is of course (in the absence of a decision from the
>great *Hol 'oDwI''a'*) no objective way to decide which is which, except
>by observing usage. Which is how meanings are usually derived in living
>languages.
The only usage I can think of is from Power Klingon:
{targhlIj yIngagh yIruch} "Go and mate with your targ!"
It doesn't sound like the same as "have sex (with one another)" to me!
-- ghunchu'wI'