tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Oct 24 14:32:28 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Blah blah blah (Was "par'mach" something or other
- From: Dark Viper <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Blah blah blah (Was "par'mach" something or other
- Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 17:32:47 -0400
At 04:48 AM 10/24/96 -0700, Dr. Lawrence M. Schoen wrote:
>Second, I can't dispute your statement that Klingon has "evolved" because
>I haven't a clue in what way you're using that term. I can't really
>think of any usage though that requires losing meaning. Please either
>clarify or retract.
I meant throughout the Klingons' tumultuous "history."
For argument's sake, let's say it's canon. Then, under that assumption, we
could say that "par'mach" is a phrase that is long lost of meaning
throughout the language's "history." It could have started off as "par
mach", meaning "I only dislike you a bit,", and then evolved into what
Klingons could refer to as "love", even though it started off as something
more literal and less exaggerated.
But with these other explanations of "small dislike" meaning "love" in
Klingon because they're generally a grumpy race and other Klingons would
take "small dislike" as "love", I have to wonder what "par" -- "like" --
means under this assumption. That the Klingon is "obsessively in love" with
the other Klingon?
I generally think that "par'mach" (I can't get that annoying non-sequitur
apostrophe out of my head!) should have been "parqu'", or as a noun "par'a'".
--Dark Viper-----------------------------
vuvnISqu'lu'
tlhIngan De' chu'vaD:
http://www.spectranet.ca/~dviper/tlhIngan
(rInHa')
-----------------------------------------