tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Dec 31 10:48:45 1999

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: Online Klingon Language Course

The more important issue being that a Klingon may not agree that *their*
words carry the same connotation? You seem to be assuming a perfect 1-1
mapping for both words and that the connotations of English carry over into
tlhIngan-Hol. This seems like a possibly incorrect assumption.

(Even in Terran languages this would be a bad assumption, which makes the
possibility even greater).


----- Original Message -----
From: <>
To: <>
Sent: Friday, December 31, 1999 10:42 AM
Subject: Re: Online Klingon Language Course

> jatlh De'vID:
> >When you "own" something you "possess" it.  But when you "possess"
> >something you don't necessarily "own" it.  That is, "possess" has
> >multiple meanings one of which is "own", but it doesn't necessarily
> >have that meaning, and a word meaning "possess" in another language
> >from English might not carry the same set of meanings.  I think the
> >point being made here is that there is no canon for interpretating
> ><ghaj> to mean "possess (in the sense of own)", only "possess
> >(in the sense of have)".
> What you are saying, IOW, is that "own" is a subset of "possess." If this
> true, than one can use the word "possess" wherever one can use the word
> "own." For example:
> I own a house.
> I possess a house.
> juH vIghaj.
> The emperor owns this ship.
> The emperor possesses this ship.
> Dujvam ghaj voDleH.
> The owner dislikes you.
> The possessor dislikes you.
> Dupar ghajwI'.
> (Note that "have" could be substituted for "own" or "possess" in any of
> examples: "I have a house," "The emperor has this ship," and "The haver
> dislikes you." Of course, "haver" isn't really a word, but you know what I
> mean.)
> - DujHoD

Back to archive top level