tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Mar 08 20:06:37 2014

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: [Tlhingan-hol] Last X and testament?

Rohan Fenwick ([email protected]) [KLI Member] 

<html>
<head>
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 12pt;
font-family:Calibri
}
--></style></head>
<body class='hmmessage'><div dir='ltr'>ghItlhpu' lojmIt tI'wI' nuv, jatlh:<br>&gt; All of this assumes that Klingons would have a will.<br><br>I'm assuming nothing, merely asking how a Klingon would describe such a thing in Klingon.<br><br>taH:<br>&gt; Wouldn’t it be more likely that when someone dies, everybody just fights over their stuff?<br><br>It is possible, but I doubt it. Klingon culture is heavily ceremonial when it comes to death, and the importance of heritage to Klingon society, coupled with the fact that Klingon legal terminology is otherwise relatively well-developed (DIb, ghIpDIj, bo'DIj, meqba', Hat, mab, qI', mub, chut), makes me think there are likely to be many complex legal provisions in place for when someone dies.<br><div><div><br></div><div>&gt; And who cares about commands left by a corpse? The whole idea is repugnant.<br><br>Not left by a corpse: left by the person while their spirit ({qa'}) still inhabited them, and as the spirit continues to survive after death, the wishes of the spirit should continue to be respected, I would think. We also know at least one proverb that indicates the actions of a Klingon spirit would continue to be relevant after death:&nbsp; {qaStaHvIS wej puq poHmey vav puqloDpu' puqloDpu'chaj je quvHa'moH vav quvHa'ghach} "the dishonour of the father dishonours his sons and their sons for three generations" (TKW p.155).<br><br>&gt; Next, you’ll be looking for the word for “funeral”.<br><br>What, you mean {nol} "funeral" (TKD p.97)?<br><br>&gt; {mol} is something one does to treasure, not to corpses.</div><br>With respect, "not to corpses" is absolutely wrong. {mol} is glossed in TKD as both "bury" and "grave" and if treasure were the intent then the gloss would surely have been "pit", not "grave". Moreover, {mol} "grave" bears the same relationship to {lom} "corpse" as {pogh} "glove" to {ghop} "hand", so there's a potential etymological connection there as well that further supports the idea that {mol} is first and foremost what is done to a corpse.<br><br>QeS<br></div> 		 	   		  </div></body>
</html>
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol

Back to archive top level