tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Aug 16 06:53:15 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: anatomical reference
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: anatomical reference
- Date: Sat, 16 Aug 1997 09:54:39 -0400 ()
- Priority: NORMAL
Well, we do now have {tlhuQ} meaning "tail", though, as with all
glosses, we don't know if it specifically refers to the
appendage we and a few other great apes lost quite a while ago,
or if it also covers the area heretofore refered to as {'o'} for
lack of a better word.
charghwI'
On Wed, 13 Aug 1997 13:54:24 -0700 (PDT) Guido
<[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Hey, we ARE the Klingons, at least in this universe! Of course it is
> >> non-canon, but if WE use, say, {'o'} as a slang word for
> >> you-know-what,
> >> then who is there to tell us a Klignon wouldn't "get it?" {{:-)
> >>
> >> -mIqIraH
> >
> > You mean if we use 'o' to mean ( . ) don't you?
> >-
> >cha'wIgh
>
> Not much can be done about slang once it gains enough inertia. At *least*
> 'o' is a noun. English's own slangification of a *preposition* for the
> anatomical form took someone a leap of synapsis. And then of course there's
> the French who never forgive the corruption of "Mon derriere est mouille".
> So you see, 'o' meaning "butt" (anatomical) is an Anglicism that's already
> been done several times. Funny thing is, neither English nor French has an
> original word meaning gluteus maximus. It's always been locational (behind,
> bottom) or metaphorical (butt/bout = bump, back (e.g. of gun)). I am
> venturing into unexperienced waters, but the most neutral (non-slang) German
> version I know of is Gesa"sse, which is just a form of the verb "sitzen" (to
> sit).
>
> I hope I don't sound too hoity-toity, BUT the original meaning of 'o', by
> TKD, is nautical/aviational. The people that used it as a locational, as
> counterpart to 'et, were admittedly stretching it. After all, can everything
> be said to have a "fore" and "aft", except metaphorically (people, animals,
> houses)? It probably doesn't belong in ranks with words like retlh and Dung,
> but it has been employed there infrequently (*sheepish grin*). 'o' has
> potential for lots of uses, but of course if we persist in the cliche of
> using it as anatomical, it might limit certain interpretations to unwitting
> crudity. Can a speaker really command an audience that can't possibly take
> seriously phraseology like "the ass of a sentence" or "the butt of my ship"?
> Maybe we should really talk to Okrand, who blessed us with ngech as
> cleavage, because who knew Klingons thought so *geographically* about such
> things. :-)
>
>
> Guido
>