tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Jul 20 05:20:19 2004
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Klingon WOTD: waQ (v)
From: "Lieven L. Litaer" <[email protected]>
> >> 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
How about the word "obstruct."
> 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:
This may satisfy your sense of symmetry, but I see no problem here.
So far as we know, {waQ} means "obstruct." That's what TKD says it means.
If you don't know what "obstruct" means, look it up.
vay' vIwaQchugh, HuvHa' 'oH.
If I obstruct something, it is obstructed.
What's the problem?
> adapting to SuStel's sentence's logic, {Huv} is equal to {waQlu'be'},
which
> I doubt.
Not equal. One is a verb of quality, the other is not.
SuStel
Stardate 4551.7
![[KLI Member]](/pics/KLImemberbutton.gif "[KLI Member]"){kind=small}
![[Hol po'wI']](/pics/level3_big.png "[Hol po'wI']"){kind=small}