tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Mar 13 09:39:56 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: ram QeH
- From: "eric d. zay" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: ram QeH
- Date: Thu, 13 Mar 1997 12:47:03 -0500
ghItlh DaQtIq
> jIHvaD jangqa' SuSvaj:
> >> >QeHlIj vIyajbej. be'pu' mIgh law' vISov. QeHlIj yajlaH Hoch
> >> >loDpu'. 'ach mIgh Hoch be'pu' 'e' teHbe'.
> >>
> >> 'e' vIlaj. mIghbe' be'pu'. quvHa' neH.
> >
> ><quvHa'>? mu'vam Dalo' DaneH'a'.
> >Are they "dishonored" or "dishonorable"?
>
> hmmmmm... Good question...
>
> In TKW p179 we find: <noH ghoblu'DI' yay quv law' Hoch quv puS.>
> which is translated as: "In war, there is nothing more honorable
> than victory."
Ah, yes. This is a case where the meanings of "honored", and "honorable"
are similar. However, with your example, <quvHa' be'pu'> to me this
implies that some affront has been committed against the women. It sounds
like they have been wronged, "dishonored", rather than doing the
dishonoring.
>
> So i think the blade cuts both ways. But i defer to Voragh, Canon
> Master for a more complete analysis. It seems to me that there may
> be something recent in the mailing list archives about <batlh> and
> <quv>.
nuq 'oH vuDlIj'e' voragh?
SuSvaj