tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Jan 19 11:50:18 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Some risque (not "risky") interpretations
>Date: Fri, 19 Jan 1996 05:30:08 -0800
>Precedence: bulk
>In reply to "Yet Another Possible Word ... gulp:"
>You never thought of the simple difficulty of trying to pronounce the
>phrase "the so - called robot," or
> qoqqoq
Hee... I saw this used once, years ago, on this line, in a story about how
someone was checking the authenticity of some robots at a station that had
been infiltrated... and reported... "DaqDaq law'law' qoqqoq." :)
>I hope this raises as much of a smile as the next word,which
>Marc Okrand himself gave us:
> nga'chuq sex - always subject
>Now, the -chuq suffix (Type 1 verb) implies plurality, since it is
>assumed that sex is always conducted with more than one person. How
>many is more than one, by the way? :-)
>But there is another Type 1 suffix, however. (Some of you may have
>looked into the future, and are now cringing at what I'm about to
>tell you. Good.)
>The existence of the term <nga'chuq> must preclude the existence of
>another verb, also always subject:
> nga''egh masturbate (v)
>Not to mention the possibility of there being a term such as
> nga'wI'ghom orgy ...
>I offer these without further comment.
These have been suggested. However, it is notable that Okrand offered the
word "nga'chuq" and NOT the putative verb "*nga'". Had the verb "*nga'"
existed, Okrand would have put *that* in the list, and not a special form.
It seems that there really isn't evidence for a separate verb "*nga'"; the
"nga'chuq" form is apparently a fossilized relic.
Now, we DO have the verb "ngagh" meaning "mate with" (from a tape-phrase
"targhlIj yIngagh, yIruch"), which you can use with -'egh. I'm not sure
the result would be "masturbate" though, nor that "*nga''egh" would mean
that either. Is masturbation really having sex with yourself? It's
exciting yourself sexually, yes, but maybe "*nga'/ngagh" refers to the act
of coupling/mating, rather than arousal.
~mark