tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Apr 26 13:54:02 1999

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

RE: KLBC: Clause this right?

jatlh pagh:
> I don't think <Hung tlhab ghap> works. This says that they mis-deserve
> (makes perfect sense in Klingon; not so much in English) either security
> or
> freedom, but not both. I think what you mean is that they mis-deserve both
> security *and* freedom.
jIjatlh quljIb:
> {Hung tlhab joq qotlhHa'taH} is the wanted phrase. "Freedon and/or
> security they continuously mis-deserve."

ja' pagh je: 
> Actually, I don't think it is. <Hung tlhab joq qotlhHa'taH> means that they
> misdeserve *at least one of* "freedom" and/or "security". The point of the
> original quote is that they deserve neither, so they must misdeserve *both*.

As a math student I must respectfully disagree. The rules of logic (he
says putting on a set of pointed ears) argue in favor of {joq}. Here, I
shall illustrate:

I like Green Eggs AND Ham.
I like Green Eggs OR Ham.

With the the first one, I'm saying I like both, together. In the second,
I'm saying I'll have one, but not with the other.

Now to the negatives:

I do not like Green Eggs AND Ham.
I do not like Green Eggs OR Ham.

Again with the first sentence, I'm telling Sam that I don't like the
two together. This says nothing about separate dishes. In the second, I'm
telling Sam, I don't like one of them, but I'm not commenting on the
other. I CAN hate both, whether I DO or not is immiterial, As long as I
hate at lest ONE the statement holds true.

Slightly different is the following:

I like Green Eggs AND I like (Green) Ham.
I like Green Eggs OR I like (Green) Ham.

The meanings of these should be obvious.

Again, the negatives:

I do not like Green Eggs AND I do not like (Green) Ham.
I do not like Green Eggs OR I do not like (Green) Ham.

The first statement is what the narrator means when he says "I do not like
Green Eggs and Ham." (Yes, yes, it's actually one dish; bear with me will
you?) The second statement show that I dislike AT LEAST one, I CAN dislike
others, but I need not.

Now, back to the original Klingon.

This honourless p'tahk does not deserve both freedom AND security AND he
does not deserve freedom OR security.

Represented mathmatically:

p = freedom
q = security
~ = negation

~(p AND q) AND ~(p OR q) = ~p AND ~q

i.e. he deserves not-freedom and not-security. He deserves neither.
He does not deserve freedom {Hung} and/or security {tlhab}.

(Who now give his ears a much needed rest!)

Back to archive top level