tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Jul 19 23:33:24 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)

Lieven L. Litaer ([email protected])

• From: "Lieven L. Litaer" <[email protected]>
• Subject: Re: Klingon WOTD: waQ (v)
• Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 08:32:39 +0200
• In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
• Organization: qepHom.de
• References: <[email protected]>
• User-agent: Opera7.11/Win32 M2 build 2887

>> From: "Lieven L. Litaer" <[email protected]>
>> DIvI' Hol vIjatlhlaHbe'. mu' <obstruct> <waQ> joq yIQIj.
>> chay' mu' <waQ> vIlo'laH?

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

Okay. Hm. Since it's me who was asking, I agree I do not know what the word 
means, but that looks too literal.
I didn't see any relationship between

  obstruct v. waQ
and
  be clear (not obstructed) v. Huv

I think so because MO usually (or frequently) makes words in pairs, and 
besides, I believe that "not obstructed" is used only as a discription for 
"clear". There would be a word "be obstructed", and {waQlu'pu'} is not the 
adjective form of "to obstruct", as it seems in SuStel's sentence:

  {HuvHa'chugh vay', vay'vam waQlu'pu'}
  "If one is un-clear, that one is obstructed by someone"

adapting to SuStel's sentence's logic, {Huv} is equal to {waQlu'be'}, which 
I doubt.

Quvar.

P.S: as we've seen so far, the answer to this word is "we don't know what 
it means"! No need to repeat, I accept this; I'm just talking about it and 
adding my thoughts.

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Klingon WOTD: waQ (v)
    • From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>

• References:
  • Re: Klingon WOTD: waQ (v)
    • From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: Imperatives + -ta'/-pu'
• Next by Date: Klingon WOTD: qeD (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