tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Jul 03 22:25:14 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: -Curses
- From: "Qermaq" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: -Curses
- Date: Sat, 4 Jul 1998 01:31:01 -0400
ghItlh Quvar muHwI':
>><toDSaH> is an epithet. (TKD p. 178.) An epithet is a word or phrase
>which
>>one applies to a person or thing to characterize or describe a quality of
>>that individual, usually disparagingly. IOW, epithets are names we assign
to
>>people or things to describe or assign a quality. Names are nouns.
>
>No.
Yes. Names are nouns. Epithets are names. I'm not certain what you disagree
with.
>In TKD, curses AND names are both in the section 5 chuvmey, curses
>are in 5.5 Exclamations. But so far, there are only curses that are
>definite exclamations. They cannot be used in another way: {Qu'vatlhpu'
>vIlegh} "I see dammits" doesn't make sense at all.
Agreed. Qu'vatlh is considered an invective. I don't have a dictionary handy
to check, but I think MO made that clear in the original TKD.
Also, we do have canonical usage of epithets, don't we, Voragh?
Besides, MO writes on page 178 TKD "... some are certainly epithetical (used
for name-calling), while others seem to have a more general application."
Seems clear from this that <petaQ>, <toDSaH>, <taHqeq>, <yIntagh> and
<Qovpatlh> are nouns by virtue of MO labeling them epithets.
>Later, in the addendum, Marc Okrand doesn't say anything on the grammar of
>these words. He only says we don't know the meaning of the words and how
>to
>use them, i.e. they defie translation.
Not true. He classifies them as epithets and general invectives. The
difference is I can't call you a <va> or a <Hu'tegh>, but I can indeed call
you a <yIntagh> or a <toDSaH>. Thus, these are names, and threfore are
nouns. Their grammar is indeed described.
>But now, there are words that can be
>used, at least in english "I see many idiots" {*toDSaHpu'* law' vIlegh} as
>nouns. Note that in the dictionary section, those words are not present, so
>there's no way to tell if noun.
Only by inference from their classification as epithets can we assume they
behave nominally. To be fair, I can call someone a "horse's ass" but
"horse's ass" isn't a noun, though it behaves like a noun. It's a noun
phrase or something like that, but not a noun. But <toDSaH>, being one word,
is likely a noun in usage. Note that all the curses are kept out of the
glossary, since they defy translation. Their absence is not compelling
evidence that we know *nothing* concerning usage. We simply know nothing
about their gloss. But by describing curses as epithets, MO all but tells us
they are nouns, just as describing some as invectives makes it clear they
are exclamations.
Qermaq