tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Sep 01 17:37:29 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: rIghwI'mey vIHoH
- From: "Klingon Ambassador" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: rIghwI'mey vIHoH
- Date: Mon, 01 Sep 1997 17:36:53 PDT
/*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