tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Apr 29 12:02:45 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: 'New' word in TKW?
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: 'New' word in TKW?
- Date: Mon, 29 Apr 1996 15:00:22 -0400 (EDT)
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]> from "Niall Hosking" at Apr 29, 96 09:17:02 am
According to Niall Hosking:
>
> I'm curious about a word in The Klingon Way that I can't find in any
> other sources, the verb <<Hutlh>>. I had real problem translating two
> sentences:
>
> quv Hutlh HoHbogh tlhIngan 'ach qabDaj 'angbe'bogh.
>
> "The Klingon who kills without showing his face has no honour."
More literally, this is, "The Klingon who kills but who does
not show his face lacks honor." The reason you are confused by
{'ach} is that it is acting as a conjunction between the verbs
of two dependent clauses. We have not seen this done much if at
all before this example, so Okrand was probably showing us that
it is okay to do this. Verbal conjunctions do not need to
connect complete sentences. It is okay to use them to connect
dependent clauses as well.
In this case, we have two Relative Clauses referring to the
same Klingon. We want to describe or pick out a Klingon who
satisfies two criteria. He has to kill and he has to not show
his face. Meanwhile, since we expect those who kill to show
their faces, it is appropriate to change this "and" to a "but",
since "and" and "but" logically mean exactly the same thing.
The only difference is a subjective indication of surprise -
broken expectation.
I am tall and I am not heavy. I am tall but I am not heavy.
These two statements mean exactly the same thing, though the
second one indicates subjectively that one might expect one who
is tall to be heavy. The first statement carries no such
shading to the meaning.
> and
>
> 'ang'eghQo' quv Hutlhbogh jagh neH ghobtaHvIS ghaH.
>
> "Only an enemy without honour refuses to show himself in battle."
More literally, "Only an enemy who lacks honor while he wages
war refuses to show himself." The suffix {-Qo'} has two
applications. In an imperative statement, it and {-Ha'} are the
only allowable negatives. You can't use {-be'}. {-Qo'} is also
used in a normal statement when you wish to state refusal.
jIqetbe'. I don't run. jIqetQo'. I won't run.
> >From the sense of these, I presume that <<Hutlh>> means 'to lack' or 'to
> be without' - am I right here?
That definitely seems to be the case.
> Also, could someone please help me with the translations of the two
> above sentences into English - when I worked through them on my own, I
> ran into problems with <<'ach>> in the first one (what is 'but' doing
> there?) and with <<-Qo'>> in the second one - in both cases, I couldn't
> see where they fit into the translation provided.
I hope I've answered these for you. Let me know if not.
> qatlho'!
>
> qSeroHS veyn
> --
> Niall Hosking
> aka Kserokhs Vaene
charghwI'
--
reH lugh charghwI' net Sov.