tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Jul 01 13:16:39 2000
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: obtuse question
ja' De'vID:
>Question: Should a /lom/ be referred to using /ghaH/ or
>/'oH/? If it used to be capable of using language, it
>certainly ain't now.
We've been told that the speaking/nonspeaking distinction isn't necessarily
made based on specific cases, but on generalities. A baby is {ghaH}
because of the expected potential of using language; someone in a deep coma
is {ghaH} because he is still a person, and people in general can speak.
However, if I had begun by talking about a corpse, I probably would have
used {'oH}. At least one Klingon belief portrayed on TV holds that corpses
are empty shells; the speaking "spirit" is no longer present.
But I began by talking about the widow's husband, and husbands are {ghaH}.
I think even dead husbands are {ghaH}, as long as the "husband" idea is
prominent. Not until you start talking about the actual remains does {'oH}
become more appropriate, in my opinion.
Besides, I was trying to be funny as I pointed out that a "widow's husband"
is dead. Even though it was only a single word, it would have spoiled the
humor of the answer to use the word "it" too soon.
-- ghunchu'wI' 'utlh