tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Mar 15 20:44:25 2014
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] Last X and testament?
<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 'utlh, jatlh:<div><div>> I really think that Klingon mentality is closer to, “Hmm. I really liked<br>> SarIS a lot before he died next to me in battle, but the battle’s over<br>> now, he’s dead, and those look like nice boots. I wonder if they are<br>> my size…” I mean, they probably wouldn’t fit is son, right?<br><br>I know it's tangential to your argument, but this is an instance where you're projecting Terran behaviour onto Klingon culture. It isn't just hale and hearty 20-something Klingons that are sent to be fighting soldiers; it is entirely possible that a Klingon who dies in battle has one or more adult children.<br></div><div><br></div><div>In any case, I've put forward a number of counterarguments, which I have tried to be very careful in constructing based primarily on canon:<br><br>1) We know that for Klingons, the actions of a living person survive their death: {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). This is explicitly supported by the (non-canon) events by which Worf and Kurn are held responsible for the alleged treason of Mogh some twenty years after Mogh's death (TNG "The Sins of the Father").<br><br>2) We know that even the status of a living person survives their death:
the {bIreqtal} ritual is "the ceremony in which the killer of the
leader of a Klingon house marries the widow and thereby becomes the head
of the house itself" (KGT p.11), which carries the clear implication
that the death of the House leader does not immediately terminate all
rights of his wife to continue to be recognised as a member of that
House.<br><br>3) We know that wealth and status are both matters of inheritance:
"[T]here are clear distinctions between those with great wealth and
influence and those with little or none. This sort of status is a matter
of inheritance" (KGT p.36). The passage about the {bIreqtal} also implies this: marriage to the widow of a deceased head of House seems to be a prerequisite of becoming the new head, indicating that the
widow serves as a sort of caretaker head for inheritance purposes and the observance of the {bIreqtal} is necessary to transfer those rights to the new head.<br><br>4) We know that the High Council is
capable of exercising jurisdiction over House property rights: "If the
High Council determines an action to be dishonorable, not only
may it remove the leader of a house from the Council itself, it may also
seize the house's lands, forces, and other holdings" (KGT p.38). This is further supported by the (non-canon) instance of Quark's marriage to Grilka to protect her property rights until such time as she could seek intervention from the High Council (DS9 "The House of Quark").<br><br>5) We know that the Klingon legal system is relatively well-developed based on the existence of a not insignificant lexicon of legal terminology (bo'DIj, chut, DIb, ghIpDIj, Hat, mab, meqba', mub, qI'...), and we have actually seen a Klingon legal proceeding on-screen in a film for which Klingon dialogue was specifically created (ST6).<br><br>So to sum up: Klingons have a relatively well-developed legal system. The High Council is capable of exercising jurisdiction over House property rights. Presumably the High Council acts within Klingon law to exercise such jurisdiction. Thus, Klingon law probably has at least some conception of, and jurisdiction over, property rights. House holdings and property are a matter of inheritance, and so Klingon law probably has at least some conception of, and jurisdiction over, inheritance. The actions and status of a living person are capable of surviving their death, at least for some purposes. Presumably lawful and honourable orders given by a living person, which are actions by definition, also survive death. Thus, a living person should be capable of giving lawful and honourable orders - including with regard to the distribution of their property - that remain valid after the person themselves has died.<br><br>Again, it isn't a corpse that gives the orders. It's a body in whom a {qa'} dwells, and in Klingon conception the {qa'} survives the death of its {porgh}. If a {qa'} has given orders, the death of the {porgh} which the {qa'} inhabits should have no bearing on the validity of the orders of the {qa'}.<br><br>taH:<br><br>> We are Klingons, not Ferengi. Accumulating wealth and passing it on<br>> to generations based upon birth and not merit is not an honorable<br>> path.<br><br>To this I have two counterarguments:<br><br>1) Even if you are right, why does inheritance necessarily need to be about birth? Why can't it be about merit, even in a system whereby wills exist? If I were a Klingon ship's captain, why can't I choose to record a will leaving my entire estate to my long-serving second-in-command who has served me intelligently and honourably?<br><br>2) You say that it is not honourable to pass wealth on to generations based upon birth and not merit, yet the whole House system, and everything we know about it, runs counter to your argument. Klingon society is heavily stratified (KGT p.36), and such stratification normally arises only in societies with social institutions for perpetuating inequality of wealth. Although we don't know the Klingon term for it (and indeed Klingons may simply refer to it with a phrase rather than a special lexeme), I contend that one of those institutions in Klingon society may well be something with enough similarity to a will that we would recognise it as such, especially given that (as I argue above) what we know about Klingon law implies at least a certain degree of legal codification of property rights and consequently of rights to inherit such property.<br><br>taH:<br>> This is not our culture. Language and culture are of the same root.<br><br>Absolutely agreed, but for the very reason that it *isn't* our culture, we need to be able to base our arguments on something rather than just make assertions. That's what I've tried to do here: to show, based on cultural and linguistic evidence, Klingons probably have legally enshrined protections for inheritance matters and one of those protections may involve something akin to what we call a will.<br><br>In any event, it still wasn't my initial intention to argue Klingons have such things as wills - only to ask how a Klingon might describe the Terran concept - but never mind; spirited exchange can lead to unexpected places. :)<br><br>QeS<br></div></div> </div></body>
</html>_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
![[KLI Member]](/pics/KLImemberbutton.gif "[KLI Member]"){kind=small}