tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Aug 22 01:28:05 1994
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: open can of worms
- From: [email protected]
- Subject: Re: open can of worms
- Date: Mon, 22 Aug 94 13:23:17 EDT
>> Okrand did {batlh bIHeghbe'}, but without proper
>> context, that implies that the death itself doesn't occur. I suppose there
>> are always ways around doing clause negation:
>The most intriguing part is that we lack sufficient cultural
>context here to be sure that he didn't specifically INTEND to
>imply that the death itself does not occur.
Yes, we lack cultural context, but the *translation* tells us exactly what he
meant. Disregarding that translation for a moment, I would interpret {batlh
bIHeghbe'} to be *honoring* the addressee, by saying "Honorably, you will not
die", i.e., "You will be honored by your staying alive (instead of being
killed in some dishonored way". Well, now, if THAT's the correct
interpretation, then the entire phrase {Hoch DaSopbe'chugh batlh bIHegh}
would not make sense. Remember the speaker's intent is to get the addressee
to eat:
"If you don't eat all, then you will stay alive and not die dishonored."
It takes quite a massive load of context to distinguish *that* meaning from
the English version in PK.
>> days, while I was still taking your correspondence course. I used the
>> constuction {Hoch wISovbogh}. I doubt you remember at all.
>>
>> In short, I was (and still am) wondering if this meant "all that we know
(and
>> no more)" OR if it meant "all/everything, which we, being the
ultra-sentients
>> that we are, know". This distinction seems highly important in many cases.
>> It's still a rare concept to portray, but still...
>I can see where having a hormonally driven ego might bring one
>to consider this latter interpretation... Stating "everything",
>with the parenthetical, nonrestrictive description that, of
>course, we know this thing, which is everything, does imply
>omniscience.
So it's still a matter of context, you're saying. Good point.
Earlier, it did occur to me that {-qu'} might be a good way to indicate
restrictiveness:
{targh chuSqu'} "the *noisy* targ (as opposed to the quiet one)"
{Duj lonqu'ta'bogh HoD'e'} "the captain who abandoned ship (as opposed to
another more honorable captain)"
>> 2) Why isn't there a counterpart to {-oy} which would indicate feelings of
>> contempt or hatred?
>I suspect that {-qoq} is often useful for this sentiment.
>{vavqoqwI'} probably has less to do with the certainty of
>genetic contribution than it does with expressing an interest in
>withholding any reward that might be associated with the term
>{vavwI'}, just as the term {vavoywI'} seeks to enhance it.
>After all, while {vavoyqoqwI'} is grammatically valid, it is a
>very strange word that would require unusual circumstances in
>order to justify the term.
This works with a word like {vav}, but what about {jagh}? I'm asking this,
because in Hamlet, I observed the phrase "dear enemy", in which "dear" simply
refers to intense feeling. That got me to thinking about {-oy} in Klingon.
Plus, all this thinking about {-oy} lead me to realize that {-oy} is the only
morpheme that would cause phonological ambiguity. E.g., is {ghu'oy} {ghu +
(')oy} or {ghu' + oy}? Tho I can't fathom under what circumstances one might
find chance to use the latter.
>charghwI'
BoyWonder