tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Dec 13 11:51:05 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: {-Daq} & non-physical places (revised)
|Voragh wrote:
|>:From: Neal Schermerhorn
|>: >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):
|
|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.
I quite agree. {-Daq} can't be used to translate the abstract English uses
of "in/on". I perhaps misunderstood Neal as saying you shouldn't use it on
a mental list since it's not a physical, *tangible* object, just one that
theoretically exists in your mind. I was just pointing out that Grethor and
the Black Fleet are just as imaginary and "theoretical" -- like Qo'noS
itself, for that matter!
|> 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.
{Dol} as a noun for "community" or "team" perhaps? Hmmm... {*borgh Dol}
"the Borg Collective"?
Voragh