tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Jul 08 04:23:29 2004

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

• Index by Date
• Index by Thread
• Index by Author

Re: I/we with {-vIp}

Lieven L. Litaer ([email protected])

• From: "Lieven L. Litaer" <[email protected]>
• Subject: Re: I/we with {-vIp}
• Date: Thu, 08 Jul 2004 13:22:44 +0200
• In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
• Organization: qepHom.de
• References: <[email protected]>
• User-agent: Opera7.11/Win32 M2 build 2887

ghItlhpu' lay'tel SIvten:

>> It seems highly unlikely that a culturally taboo sentence would be used 
>> to illustrate an unrelated grammatical point, so apparently the taboo is 
>> strictly against the speaker acknowledging his own fear.

jang QeS lagh:

> That seems pretty self-explanatory from what we know of Klingon culture, 
> and my guess is that this is what Okrand meant when he wrote his original 
> explanation.

btw, the example contains the suffix {-be'} "not".
So I believe one can still say {jIHeghvIpbe'} without breaking taboos.

What other -vIp examples do we have? I can only find two, which have "you" 
as the subject.

  {bIHeghvIpchugh bIHeghpu'}
  "If you are afraid to die you have already died."

  {choHoHvIp}
  "you are afraid to kill me."

Sounds almost like an insult.  :-)

Quvar.

  you can write klingon!
  can you speak klingon?
  [email protected]
  ->http://www.qepHom.de
  -->november 26-28 2004

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: I/we with {-vIp}
    • From: Steven Boozer <[email protected]>

• References:
  • Re: I/we with {-vIp}
    • From: "QeS lagh" <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Klingon WOTD: pub (v)
• Next by Date: Re: Klingon WOTD: pub (v)
• Previous by thread: Re: I/we with {-vIp}
• Next by thread: Re: I/we with {-vIp}
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

Back to archive top level