tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Feb 23 20:18:10 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Hoch
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Hoch
- Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 23:22:40 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
- Priority: NORMAL
On Tue, 23 Feb 1999 19:43:59 -0800 (PST) [email protected]
wrote:
> naQ chabwIj
My pie is complete. My pie is whole.
> naQ Ha'DIbaH
The animal is whole. The animal is entire? The animal is
complete?
> naQ QoghIjlIj
Your brain is whole. Your brain is complete.
> 'ach naQbe' yablIj
But your mind is not whole, full, complete, entire.
Given the right context, these could make sense, but they don't
strike me as particularly great examples. I also don't see how
they tie in to your rather lone interpretation of how {naQ}
works when it follows a noun. That's what I've asked for and you
have not done it yet.
You have, however, made progress. This is the first time you
have actually used {naQ} as a verb, though you didn't bother to
translate it so we could see how you translate it.
> Ah, we have discovered a case of one to three of KLI's distinguished members
> having arbitrarily decided that {naQ} means what they want it to.
tlhoS bIyajchoH. What you have is a case of at least three KLI
members, distinguished or not, who AGREE on what it means, so
when we use it in Klingon discourse (which your arguments
distract us from), we will communicate successfully.
You don't seem to have much interest in communicating
successfully while using the language. You prefer to declare
controversial things so you can remain the center of threads
that refuse to either die OR conclude anything.
Like this one.
I will confess that I find myself looking closer at {naQ} than I
ever did before. I mean, it's range of function is rather
limited and I'm not sure that totally nailing down its meaning
is all that important, but as a byproduct of all this arguing, I
know that I feel more focussed and clear on its likely meaning
than I would have otherwise. It seems like a high cost, low
reward blessing, though.
> Well, of
> course, I have felt out the meaning of Klingon words. The words are in the
> dictionary without being used in sentences which prove to us exactly what they
> mean. Obvious to me is that we need a usage dictionary from the Source
> himself. We need lots more canon sentences.
Likely, we'll continue to get them. This is a good thing. What
bothers me is the agressive, nasty complaining about what Okrand
NEEDS to do that flows from you like a perpetual fountain.
I tend to rather much appreciate everything he already has done.
Without his talent, attention and odd flukes of Fate, there
wouldn't be a language here for us to enjoy. So enjoy it.
> Now, let's see how I am interpreting {naQ}. Until you folks claimed that it
> means "no parts missing," I looked at it only as "all there."
This discussion started with you not giving it any verbal
meaning at all. You were only using it following nouns and you
were translating it meaning "all", which is a word not in the
dictionary definition, while we were using words like "complete"
and "whole", which ARE in the dictionary. I mean, when you see
the words "complete, whole, full, entire" piled next to each
other, there does seem to be a common thread of meaning. That is
what our interpretation flows from.
You started with {Hoch}, ignored the example of what {Hoch}
means when it follows a noun and decided that {naQ} means what
{Hoch} means when it follows a noun. Everything since then has
been efforts to plug a rather leaky argument.
> I am seeing
> that we could both be right. OTOH, MO may come up with another verb to
> express your idea.
He doesn't need to. He already gave us {naQ}. As for what YOU
want to use {naQ} for, he already gave us {Hoch} following
another noun.
> peHruS
charghwI' 'utlh