tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Dec 12 15:10:02 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: {-Daq} & non-physical places (revised)
- From: "Robyn Stewart" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: {-Daq} & non-physical places (revised)
- Date: Fri, 12 Dec 1997 15:10:39 PST
- Organization: NLK Consultants, Inc.
- Priority: normal
Voragh wrote:
>: From: Neal Schermerhorn <[email protected]>
>: >And can <-Daq> refer to a non-physical place, such as
>: >a vocabulary list? (Adding <tetlh> in there might help that.)
>:
>
>I think you're probably safe in using it with {tetlh} as any list,
>even one in your head, can be written down if necessary thus
>becoming tangible.
I'd accept it witlh tetlh. Be the list hypothetical or real, the
name is physically on it.
> BTW, Okrand has used {-Daq} with non-physical places (imaginary or
> mythological):
[examples of {ghe''orDaq}, {yo' qIjDaq} etc. deleted.]
The point is not whether the physical location actually exists or
could exist. The point is that {-Daq} refers to physical location,
not meanings such as "in love," "in trouble," "in luck," "you're in
today's paper," "he's in starship repair," "at a bad time," "to the
max," "on the radio." The suffix {-Daq} indicates where something
phyically is or is headed.
> wa' Dol nIvDaq matay'DI' maQap
> We succeed together in a greater whole. TKW
When we say this in English we *aren't* talking about a physical
location, and in absence of this canon I'd have said:
{wa' Dol nIvvaD matay'DI' maQap}
Maybe the Klingon meaning leans more to the idea that the greater
whole is a physical entity that we form a part of and are *in* while
we are together.
Maybe we're a bunch of lunatics desperately finding patterns in
gibberish. :)