tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Nov 21 20:39:48 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: jIlIH(')egh, etc.
On Tue, 21 Nov 1995, Christian Matzke wrote:
> On 21 Nov 95 at 6:50, Elizabeth C. Hoyt <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 21 Nov 1995, Christian Matzke wrote:
> >
> > > Similar question: what plural suffix should be used on qa' (spirit)?
> > > qa'pu' fits with the Klingon idea that the body is merely a shell,
> > > while the true person is the spirit.
> > > qa'Du' works since the spirit is part of the person.
> > > qa'mey seems as wrong IMO. Anyone else have a suggestion?
> > >
> > > maSqa'
> >
> > Well, if the body is merely a shell, then any body part is a part of the
> > shell, while the spirit is not--it is the true person, then you'd have to
> > use -pu'. -Du' would be wrong. IMHO. (Am I making sense here, or
> > rambling? ;)
> >
> > I guess the test is: Can we say that a spirit is a being which uses language?
> That's the rub. Can they speak? Well, Hamlet's father does, but he
> was a lomqa'. The only cannon example is given as "May the spirit of
> Kahless live within you"; no mention of his spirit having a
> conversation with you...
Actually another canon example of {qa'} is:
qaSDI' nenghep, qa' patlh chu' chav tlhIngan SuvwI'. (Trading card S9)
(But this doesn't really answer your question either.)
We know a couple of things about Klingon spirits.
In the Klingon Death Ritual, Klingons howl to inform the dead that a
warrior is about to arrive, which implies that they can understand speech.
The honored dead go to Sto-Vo-Kor and the dishonored dead go to {ghe''or}
(Gre'thor). You can encounter them in your dreams and they can possess
the living (Jat'yin). In short, they would appear to possess some of the
faculties of a sentient being so I would be inclined to use {-pu'}.
> > tlheghmeQ
> maSqa'
yoDtargh