tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Jul 22 05:44:48 2004

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: {qI'} (was Klingon WOTD: qeD)

ngabwI' ([email protected]) [KLI Member] [Hol po'wI']

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "QeS lagh" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2004 5:02 AM
Subject: Re: Klingon WOTD: qeD (v)


> ghItlhpu' SuSvaj:
>
> >I would not assume that.  "qI'" refers narrowly to the act of signing.
> >Placing ones signature on the >paper (or data padd as the case may be).
> >The first thing I think of when I hear "qI'Ha'" is erasing >the
signature.
> >If an individual breaks a contract, or a government pulls out of a
treaty,
> >they don't >physically erase the signature on the document.
>
> Well, not always, anyway; but they might do their best to see that the
> document (along with the signature) is destroyed.
>
> So {qI'} is the physical act of actually *signing* the treaty, rather than
> the more abstract act of becoming affected by a treaty? I had leant more
> towards the second definition, and I'd assumed that the actual act of
> signing would be given by <ghItlh>.

I thought so, too, until I ran across this word. According to Voragh, IIRC,
this verb has never been used in canon, and there are some on this list
(myself included) that believe that the use of "sign (a treaty)" as its
gloss is meant to indicate that this verb applies to the act of signing a
document, an autograph, a guest book, *or* a treaty. (So this verb could
conceivably be used to form the clumsy retrofit {qI'pu'ghach} "signature".)

There are others that believe that this verb is strictly for signing
treaties, and that {ghItlh}or another, as yet unknown, verb, applies to the
general act of signing one's name.

IOW, {maSovchu'be'} }}: )

--ngabwI'
Beginners' Grammarian
Klingon Language Institute
http://kli.org
HovpoH 701819.9

Back to archive top level