tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Nov 07 07:44:49 2006
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: disagree
be''etlh:
> >> For the verb Qoch (disagree) is it correct to have the parties to the
> >> disagreement as the subject and the object?
ghunchu'wI':
> > Probably not. It isn't defined as "disagree with". I can't think of
> > any examples that support using it transitively.
> >
> >> Rachel disagrees with Sally
> >> Sally Qoch Rachel
lay'tel SIvten:
>I can't find *any* canon for {Qoch}, which surprises me.
It shouldn't, after all:
Agreeing is not a trait typically associated with Klingon nature,
however, and apparently, at least under certain circumstances, this
may extend to grammar as well. (KGT 172)
WRT grammar, Okrand has only mentioned the word in a post to the old
startrek.expertforum BBS (11/1997):
Both {Qochbe'nIS} "he/she/they need to not disagree" (that is,
"he/she/they need to agree") and {QochnISbe'} "he/she/they do not
need to disagree" are acceptable Klingon formations. The fact that
the Dictionary lists {Qochbe'} "agree" (that is, literally, "not
disagree") does not mean that no suffix may precede the {-be'}.
It's in there so that someone can easily look up how to say "agree".
and in a discussion of idiomatic and slang phrases equivalents in KGT:
The slang term [{qang}] may be found in such sentences as {jIHDaq
Daqang} ("You always agree with me, you always cooperate with me";
literally, "You pour [something] into me"). To say that someone
"pours (always agrees)" is somewhat derogatory, implying that the
agreeing or cooperating may be for ulterior motives. Nonslang equi-
valents of {qang}, though lacking the negative connotation, are
{reH Qochbe'} ("always agree"), {reH yeq} ("always cooperate"),
and {reH jIj} ("always be cooperative"). (KGT 159)
the Klingon phrase {wa' DoS wIqIp} ("We hit one target") or the shorter
{DoS wIqIp} ("We hit a target") is frequently heard in conversations
that have nothing to do with shooting, targets, or even weaponry. It is
a way of saying "We agree". By the same token, {cha' DoSmey DIqIp} ("We
hit two targets") or the shorter {DoSmey DIqIp} ("We hit targets")
normally means "We disagree". (KGT 105-06)
The only variant that can take an object is the derogatory slang term {qang}.
> > The more conservatively correct usage is to have the two disagreeing
> > parties as joint subjects:
> >
> > Qoch Sally Rachel je
ghunchu'wI' is probably correct as to how {Qoch} is used. Note BTW that
{yeq}/{jIj} "cooperate" and {tay'} "be together/united" also seem to
require a joint subject. That is, we can't say "Sally cooperates with
Rachel" but only "Sally and Rachel cooperate", not "Sally is
together/united with Rachel" but "Sally and Rachel are
together/united". I'm sure there are other similar verbs.
--
Voragh
Ca'Non Master of the Klingons