tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Dec 11 00:00:56 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: <<yIngachuqegh>>
- From: "J. Paul Brettle" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: <<yIngachuqegh>>
- Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 03:17:16 -0800
- Organization: University of Birmingham
>Based on the Consolidated Word List (TKD2+the New Klingon Words
>Web page), there's apparently no verb <<*nga'>> (implied
>meaning "mate with") - just <<nga'chuq>>, "perform sex" with
>that funny notation of all parties involved being the subject -
>which _does_ look like <<*nga'>> plus the type 1 suffix
><<-chuq>> - but are we sure that this is what it is? And if
>so, what's the source?
There has been an ongoing debate as to whether <<nga'>> is a canon verb
or not.
Given that <<nga'chuq>> and <<ngaghchuq>> would have exactly the same
meaning by any interpretation, and that the only source for <<ngagh>> is
a spoken one (PK), it seems a little legalistic to say that they are
not different spellings/misspellings of the same word.
It is of course possible that they are indeed two different words with
the same meaning but different stress. Like the difference between <mate>
and <f**k>. There is of course (in the absence of a decision from the
great *Hol 'oDwI''a'*) no objective way to decide which is which, except
by observing usage. Which is how meanings are usually derived in living
languages.
joSepuS