tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Nov 05 17:14:16 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: jIchuSchoHqu'be'jaj
ja' Joel:
>parmaq is almost certainly a lousy word for "love" as expressed in agape'.
qabqu'chugh <parmaq>, qatlh Dalo'ta'?
>We don't
>have any really good words - the paucity of our dictionary is legendary.
This attitude irritates me. There are *many* good words, each one quite
precise in what it means. Over the past few days, we've seen a number of
ways posted here to express love. The topic comes up from time to time,
and it's always been apparent that in order to translate "love", one must
know exactly what is meant by it.
The dictionary lacks direct translations for many English words, true.
But I'd hardly choose the word "paucity" to describe it! There are many
ways to express nearly any given idea -- if you but go to the trouble of
stripping away the words that are blinding you to what the idea really is.
>...were I a "missionary" to the Klingons, maybe I
>would use "parmaq" - aiming at moving them toward a new understanding of
>parmaq.
That's another attitude that irritates me -- presuming to tell someone
what their words "really" mean, merely because a simplistic translation
of those words happens to resemble another substantially unrelated idea
in English. A missionary with your mindset would not last long.
[That reminds me -- in case anyone is still wondering, {pong} can NOT refer
to a telephone call. :-) Marc Okrand himself said so at qep'a' loSDIch.]
-- ghunchu'wI'