tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Dec 24 11:11:20 1996

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: tlhIngan tIgh (was RE: lommey)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

>Date: Tue, 24 Dec 1996 10:53:37 -0800
>From: Steven Boozer <[email protected]>
>
>>December 23, 1996 5:07 AM, jatlh peHruS:
>>> > <<SuStel, reH maQochbe'laH.  tlhIngan tighmey DIHaDnIStaH.>>
>>> 
>>> I question the use of
>>> {tIghmey}.  Shouldn't that be an inherent plural?  Therefore, I suggest
>>> {tIgh} as sufficient.
>>
>>We have no way of knowing this that I can recall.  The only two instances of 
>
>There is another word that may behave similarly, {ghob} "ethics, virtue":
>
>Concidentally, the original title of {tlhIngan tIgh} "The Klingon Way" was
>{tlhIngan ghobmey paq} "The Klingon Book of Virtues" according to the
 ... 
>*is* a count noun (ghobmey) as one can speak of individual virtues (see the
>Introduction to TKW) and S13 also refers to {wa' ghob}. The same thing may
>happen with {tIgh}, but we have no examples so far. Outside of the title,

I'm not sure I see the question.  We don't have an example of "tIgh" used
as a count-noun, but then we don't have "Hoqra'" as a count-noun (ok, maybe
we do; I was just looking for any noun we've not seen in canon).  Does that
mean maybe it isn't?  Maybe there's a massified concept of "tricorder"?  I
wouldn't think so.  It's pretty clear that some as-yet-unattested nouns are
probably mass-nouns, but do we have to assume they all are?  It's not like
it's hard to conceive of a single custom.  If he'd meant "customs" or
"customary activities," he'd have said so, and not left it as singular.  It
sounds pretty count-noun to me.

(Then again, "custom" *is* both a count-noun and a mass-noun in English,
which most nouns aren't.  But we probably can still go by the English
definition, since the count-noun meaning is certainly the more common and
the one we can be expected to infer from a one-word definition.)

>Theoretical question:  since the phrase {tlhIngan ghobmey paq} was never
>officially used in any *published* Klingon materials, is this really canon
>for the wider Klingonist community or merely supplemental info from Okrand
>(the equivalent of a phone call [qa'vIn] or casual conversation at a qep'a'
>['I', ngech, nughI'])? Personally, I accept it as canonical.

Good question.  It "feels" canonical to me, mostly because it plainly
wasn't invented by anyone but Okrand.  I don't see the difference you draw
between canon for everyone and supplemental information: that supplemental
information IS canon, and it's canon for everyone.  The KLI or MSN-readers
or other small groups happened to be the ones to whom it was given at
first, in order that they propogate it out to the rest of the community.
Then again, this never "officially" made it out the door.  Okrand had all
sorts of words and ideas that got scrapped along the way; we certainly
can't take his out-takes as canon (or the language will be laughably
inconsistent).  This looks like it went a little farther though.

~mark

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.4, an Emacs/PGP interface

iQB1AwUBMsAq0sppGeTJXWZ9AQHdfwL8DdXvJU1uuBX3z1DXFjfZSB+TMqz4Y/u+
fNexd+Y0WrVt5qB40jHUJSXC4gWRYZcbT7OH7y8FBWRdvIcfyEcZtx/EmItLxdBK
5KxJEDfNM8a5+chv6NtZYny2lhm89Vgk
=pOtH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Back to archive top level