tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Dec 03 16:26:39 1999

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

RE: KLBC: wot /pong/ vIlo'meH vInID

	ja' SuStel:

> jatlh tuv'el:
> > > DaH SoHvaD nuchHomna' vIpongtaH jIH.
> > > Now *I'm* calling you a definite little coward.
> Note that {nuchHomna'} means "definite bit of a coward."  That is, the
> {-Hom} makes the {nuch} less significant, or less of a coward.
> What does the "little" in "little coward" mean?  Does it mean {mach}
> "small"?  Not really.  If anything, it's meant to make the coward himself
> seem smaller, less important, but his cowardice is not in any way
> diminished.
> How about
> DaH nuch'a'na' qapong.
> Now I call you a definite great coward.
> Not a literal translation from the English, but it conveys the idea
> better.
	qech QaQqu'!  I didn't even think about the fact that /-Hom/
trivializes the noun it modifies.

> jatlh tuv'el:
> > > be'nalwI' chaj DoghvaD be' 'IH pong'a' ghaH?
> > > He called my wife's silly friend a beautiful woman?
> According to KGT pp.202-3, {maqoch} and {chaj} are only used when good
> friends of the appropriate sex are ADDRESSING one another.  You probably
> don't use these words outside of direct address.  They're not nouns you
> can
> use just anywhere and maintain any kind of honor.  I'd suggest falling
> back
> on {jupna'}, as per KGT p. 202.
> (Consider the example of a father calling his son {maqoch}.  For
> English-speaking Terrans, this is similar to, but not identical to, a
> father
> calling his son "buddy."  A son would never respond to his father by
> calling
> him "buddy," however, just as a Klingon son would never call his father
> {maqoch}.  Now, consider: would a narrator, such as yourself in the above
> sentence, talking about the father and son ever call the son the "father's
> buddy"?  No, never.  The term is only used in direct address.  I suggest
> that the Klingon idea is the same, and {maqoch} and {chaj} are only used
> by
> the participants in the relationship.)
	OK, so my sentence was even more insulting than originally planned.
I looked it up, and it indicated that it was very insulting for a man to
refer to a woman using the term /chaj/.  I didn't see any indication that
/chaj/ could never be used outside of a private conversation between two
women, just that it was unusual and insulting.  And, you're right.  It
didn't convey the exact meaning I had in mind.  reH jIqawbejneS.

	- tuv'el

Back to archive top level