tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Jul 19 08:07:16 2004

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: Klingon WOTD: waQ (v)

Steven Boozer ([email protected])

• From: Steven Boozer <[email protected]>
• Subject: Re: Klingon WOTD: waQ (v)
• Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2004 10:07:03 -0500
• In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
• References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>

> > Klingon word:   waQ
> > Part of Speech: verb
> > Definition:     obstruct

Quvar:
>DIvI' Hol vIjatlhlaHbe'. mu' <obstruct> <waQ> joq yIQIj.
>chay' mu' <waQ> vIlo'laH?

{waQ} has never been used or discussed by Okrand.  Until we obtain further 
data, we should probably assume that it's used similarly to "obstruct" in 
English, since that is the gloss Okrand chose.

We also have {bot} "prevent, block, prohibit", used once in TKW:

   Dubotchugh yIpummoH
   If it's in your way, knock it down.

Considering this TKW example and the fact that {bot} also appears in 
{botjan} "shields (force field on ship)", it's *possible* that {bot} is 
used for more physical or tangible obstructions while {waQ} *may* refer to 
other types of obstructions (e.g. bureaucratic, political, malicious, 
etc.), making it closer to {nIS} "disrupt, interfere with, hinder".

SuStel:
>>HuvHa'chugh vay', vay'vam waQlu'pu'

OTOH we do have {Huv} "be clear, not obstructed" which sounds pretty 
physical.

<sigh>  As is so often the case, we just don't know how {waQ} is properly 
used.



-- 
Voragh
Ca'Non Master of the Klingons 

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Klingon WOTD: waQ (v)
    • From: Philip Newton <[email protected]>

• References:
  • Klingon WOTD: waQ (v)
    • From: [email protected]
  • Re: Klingon WOTD: waQ (v)
    • From: "Lieven L. Litaer" <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: wot <<poH>>
• Next by Date: Re: Klingon WOTD: waQ (v)
• Previous by thread: Re: Klingon WOTD: waQ (v)
• Next by thread: Re: Klingon WOTD: waQ (v)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

Back to archive top level