tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Nov 25 12:23:50 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: RE: chon qaq
On Wed, 25 Nov 1998 12:03:24 -0800 (PST) "Andeen, Eric"
<[email protected]> wrote:
> lab charghwI':
>
> > On Wed, 25 Nov 1998 06:27:34 -0800 (PST) "Lieven L. Litaer"
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > is that understandable:
> > > {chon qaq law' gheD qaq puS}?
> > >
> > > (the chase is better than the catch)
> > >
> > > muHwI'
> >
> > My problem with this is that it implies a comparison between a
> > process (hunting) and a creature (prey). I think you mean to
> > compare two experiences. For that, I think you'd be better with
> > one of those rare uses (and I mean this really needs to remain
> > rare) of {-ghach}.
> >
> > chonlI'ghach qaq law' chonta'ghach qaq puS.
> >
> > Think about it.
>
> I don't really object to the original phrase - I think the comparison is
> somewhat valid - but the alternative you provided is more descriptive and
> fits the idea better. Unfortunately, unless you know of a source I do not,
> <chon> is just a noun. The verb that should be used here is <wam>.
>
>
> pagh
> Beginners' Grammarian
HIvqa' veqlargh! bIqarqu'!
Replacing {wam} I still think this is better than the original,
since I think the original compares an experience to a creature.
It's like saying that eating is better than food. Prey is
involved in hunting just like food is involved in eating, and if
there is no prey, there is no hunting. If there is no hunting,
then there is no prey. Prey becomes prey when it is hunted.
Hunting becomes hunting when there is prey to hunt. Otherwise,
you are just standing in the woods with a weapon. If prey is not
necessary, then, why bother going to the woods? Sit in a closet
and "hunt".
The comparison I made pointed to the difference between the
experience of being engaged in the hunt vs. the experience of
having already achieved the goal of it. I still think that is
much more to the point.
charghwI' 'utlh