tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Jul 05 09:56:51 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: -Curses
- From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: -Curses
- Date: Sun, 5 Jul 1998 11:33:46 -0400
From: Qermaq <[email protected]>
>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.
No. Names can be *used as nouns*, but that doesn't mean they are nouns.
Epithets are used "for name-calling," but that doesn't mean they're names.
They MAY be these things, but we have no such definition presented to us.
>>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.
They're used for name-calling. Sounds more like direct address than
subject/object assignation.
Can name-calling words, epithets, be used in ordinary sentences in subject
or object (or oblique) positions? Not that we've ever seen, though there
may be some we haven't seen. What we need to realize is that the only thing
we KNOW we can do with these is name-calling, which seems to fall under the
category of exclamation rather than subject or object or noun.
>>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.
These are {chuvmey}, and categorized under Exclamations, not Names.
Exclamations are not usable as parts of sentences. In the Addendum we learn
that "it is not always clear how to use the curses," and we are simply told
which are epithets and which are invectives, but the implication seems to be
that all of these words are not combined into sentences. "These expressions
stand as sentences in their own right."
>>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.
I think this is an area where comparing Klingon to English doesn't work.
Klingon's three-category language doesn't map to English well enough to do
that.
We've never heard an epithet used in any way other than an exclamation.
SuStel
Stardate 98509.6