tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Sep 01 17:37:29 1997

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: rIghwI'mey vIHoH



/*Stardate 97669.8*/
/*Begin Transmission*/

nuqneH.

Qov jatlh:
>>*QUAKE* vIQujvIS rIghwI'mey vIHoH.
>
>reH {-vIS} lo'lu'DI' 'ut {-taH}.  {vIQujtaHvIS}

vIyaj.  mu'ghomwIj vIlaDqa'ta' 'ej vIqawpu'. qatlho'.

>>vIHoHQo'chugh vaj batlh jIHegh.
>
>DaHoHQo'qu'chugh batlh bIHegh'a'?  DaHoHQo'chugh nuch qar'a' SoH?
>chaq maS {DaHoHlaHbe'chugh}.  

HIvqa' veqlargh!  

>(Do you really mean to say you will die with
>honour if you refuse to kill them?)*

This brings up an issue I have been grappling with, and partially why I 
posted this.
I have not really been comfortable deciding when to use {-be' } "not" as 
opposed to {-Qo'} "don't, won't" when trying to negate something.  A 
friend and I have been saying {jISaHQo'} regarding boring schoolwork, 
but I am beginning to understand that this would mean "I refuse to care" 
instead of the intended "I don't care".  
Our reasoning was that {jISaHQo'} meant "I don't care" (-Qo' "don't, 
won't") and the use of {-be'} would mean "I not care".  After 
re-re-thinking this, I see that "I not care" is pretty much what we 
would want to say since tlhIngan Hol works differently than Federation 
Standard.

If I rendered {yIHoHQo'}, would this be "you(imp) refuse to kill 
him/her/it" instead of "you(imp) don't kill him/her/it"?


wa' Dol nIvDaq matay'DI' maQap.
juDevmo' qatlho'.
Qapla'!


*Dawut*
[email protected]
[email protected]

*Some peaceful cultures value all life in the universe as being sacred, 
and would never take the life of another sentient being; however, I 
realize that this does not describe Klingons.

/*End of Transmission*/

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com


Back to archive top level