tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Jan 31 15:16:31 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: -wI'
According to Alan Anderson:
>
> >If you are trying to phrase something such as "the book which is
> >green," the Klingon phrase is simply
> >
> > paq SuD
>
> That works fine if you know the thing is a book. But what if you can't
> identify that smooth thing your targ has in his fangs? Do you call it
> a {HabwI'}, a {Doch Hab}, or a {Habbogh Doch}? *Can* you say {HabwI'}?
> That's the question.
>
> -- ghunchu'wI' batlh Suvchugh vaj batlh SovchoH vaj
Well, at this point, the answer is "no". Okrand can easily make
an explicit pronouncement otherwise and that will change, but
clearly at this point, a being capable of language can do or be
something and become {-wI'}, but a thing incapable of language
at this point must DO something to become a {-wI'}, and being
smooth almost certainly does not qualify as such an action.
It may seem like an odd distinction, but if we take the
reasonably conservative approach of interpreting the rules and
canon we have, at this point the suffix seems primarily aimed
at people or things which DO something, with the add-in that
people can BE something and get the suffix as well. This latter
mention seems weak and to further stretch it to cover things
that be something seems to step beyond usage I'd feel good
about until Okrand does it or says it is okay.
charghwI'
--
\___
o_/ \
<\__,\
"> | Get a grip.
` |