tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Nov 07 08:58:25 1995

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: ranks and titles (was Suppletion)

According to Rick Young:
> 
> In HolQeD 3:1 Jonathan Van Hoose noted that the HoD followed the name 
> Klaa in ST5, "tlha HoD". The Skybox card clearly shows this too, 
> thereby settling where ranks go in respect to word order. However, 
> what about joH, jaw, qaH, pIn'a' etc.? These are not ranks (I would 
> consider them titles), but do they behave like them? Does anyone have a
>  canon example of joH Qugh or some such to muddy the waters?

Canon uses them as direct terms on their own, like the current
American use of "sir". We say, "Yes, Will," or "Yes, sir." We
do not say, "Yes, sir Will." Current canon points towards the
use of direct terms of rank to follow the names and these other
terms to be simple nouns often used to address others.

> I can 
> think of at least one novel that had HoD Qayn wa'DIch for Captain 
> Kain of the first order, but Okrand didn't edit this author's work, so it
>  doesn't hold nearly as much weight. 

Zero weight. ramqu'.

>     I'm also curious, after watching Star Trek Generations, if pIn'a' 
> would be used to translate both Master (TKD page 183) and Mistress 
> (the title which Lursa was called in that movie)? Except in the 
> Hamlet translation I have not seen any Hol terms which differentiate 
> between sexes (Hamlet has ta'be' etc.). The fact that ghaH doesn't 
> differentiate leads me to believe pIn'a' wouldn't either (nor would 
> HoD, joH, or qaH) it's only in the english translation that we see a 
> difference. Now I should point out that I completely agree with the 
> term ta'be' for queen, this sort of distinction would be needed.
> Any comments?

I personally think that there need be no distinction. The rank
has to do with who is in control. If there were a couple at the
highest office, then one would be in charge and the other would
be a person related to the person in charge. There is not, in
Klingon culture, a male ruler and a female ruler
simultaneously. There is simply a ruler and his or her mate.
Still, only one is the ruler. And if there is no mate, then
there is simply a ruler. Gender is insignificant.

Meanwhile, our human attachment to gender is such that we seek
a different word for a female ruler than we do for a male one.
I see this as a human corruption and will tolerate it in
Hamlet, but will never use it in my own language.

>                         maSqa' 

charghwI'
-- 

 \___
 o_/ \
 <\__,\
  ">   | Get a grip.
   `   |

Back to archive top level