tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Mar 22 20:42:22 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Analysis of {mo'taq lut}
On Wed, 22 Mar 1995, charghwI' wrote:
> According to janSIy:
>
> > A.Appleyard's analysis:
> >
> > > * qeq qeylIS 'e' tlhob mo'taq
> > > === I suspect that {qeq} is intransitive only... {qeq} here should
> > > be {qeqmoH} = "cause (Motak) to practise, train (Motak)".
> >
> > Personally, I believe that qeq is only transitive. The meaning that you
> > read in qeq should be qeq'egh.
>
> Here, I side with Appleyard... The most common meaning seems to be
> intransitive.
OK. You caught me. In actuality I am not willing to insist on either
and, myself, use both. Until Okrand indicates which verbs are transitive
and which intransitive (if there is, as it appears, such a distinction) I
will not truely take sides.
> > I also use two separate meanings for vaj and SuvwI'. I use SuvwI' to
> > mean, "a fighter who does not deserve the title 'warrior'". This is
should be 'vaj'----^^^
> > usually either an untrained fighter or a un-honourable fighter.
>
> SuvwI' = warrior. What is the big deal here?
I don't argue that the correct English word is 'warrior', just that there
is a distinction in Klingon. It's a personal opinion that I don't need
anyone else to agree with.
janSIy