tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Sep 19 01:21:17 1995

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

• Index by Date
• Index by Thread
• Index by Author

Re: }} 'Smoking', in defense of my sig, and {QaQ}

• From: [email protected]
• Subject: Re: }} 'Smoking', in defense of my sig, and {QaQ}
• Date: Tue, 19 Sep 1995 01:21:17 -0400

In a message dated 95-09-15 22:55:36 EDT, you write:

>For "good" meaning the opposite of evil or wicked, I would use {mIghbe'} or 
>{mIghHa'}. 

I see a difference between the Verb Suffix Rovers <-be'> and <-Ha'>.  To me,
<-be'> "not  having the quality/action of the verb."  <-Ha'> means "having a
misdirected quality/action of the verb."

Therefore, I do not think we can loosely interchange Verb+be' and Verb+Ha'.
 I find them to mean different things.  I welcome more discussion on this
perceived difference.

Meanwhile, I definitely agree with the concept of the above-mentioned snip.
 We do need to see what the English meaning is, nuances and all, and
translate accordingly.  Therefore, very often we will use different words in
the target language (Klingon) to translate different connotations of the same
English word.

peHruS

• Prev by Date: [none]
• Next by Date: }} Q: -Ha' (was Re: 'Smoking' etc.)
• Prev by thread: Re: }} 'Smoking', in defense of my sig, and {QaQ}
• Next by thread: Re: }} 'Smoking', in defense of my sig, and {QaQ}
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

Back to archive top level