tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Dec 03 16:26:39 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: KLBC: wot /pong/ vIlo'meH vInID
- From: Burt Clawson <[email protected]>
- Subject: RE: KLBC: wot /pong/ vIlo'meH vInID
- Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 17:19:24 -0700
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