tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Jan 25 07:29:19 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: v/t. --- v/i.
On Sun, 24 Jan 1999 22:54:01 -0800 (PST) "Lieven L. Litaer"
<[email protected]> wrote:
> ghItlh Qermaq:
>
> >Since you didn't put KLBC, and you know to do that, here I go.
> Of course :-)
Ahah! This door opens for ME as WELL! Mwahahahahahahahaaaa...
> ><legh> is clearly OK as a transitive verb...
> >"Die" transitive? Not in the dialect I speak...
>
> >the word "die" is only int. as I have observed.
> Interesting! What about "He died a natural death"? (That's what my dic
> says.)
Consider the MEANING, not just the WORDS. To die a natural death
does not mean that you are performing the action of dying upon
the natural death. The natural death is a description of the
means of dying. Of course, in Klingon, the concept of "natural
death" is yet another thing to contend with. A Klingon would
consider having a betleH driven through his chest to be a
natural death. He would consider a quiet death in a hospital bed
quite unnatural.
A death in battle, natural for a Klingon, would be an honorable
death. {batlh Hegh}. "He died honorably." The quiet, human
"natural causes" death would be a dishonorable death. {batlhHa'
Hegh}. "He died dishonorably."
So, do you make the cultural shift and consider what a Klingon
would consider a natural death, or do you change the term to
convey the description of the same kind of death? Is it an
honorable death or a dishonorable one? You have to decide what
it is you are trying to convey. Working from words alone is not
enough. Work with the meanings.
> >But <Hegh> is a fine example of a verb in Klingon which cannot take an
> >object. Add a <-moH> to it, however, and it is useful as a transitive verb.
> And what would that mean? "Cause s.o. to die". Isn't that just {HoH}?
I would not argue with that.
> >Great questions, muHwI'.
> Thanks.
>
> Quvar muHwI'
> (Lieven L. Litaer, Germany)
>
> -=finally a happy and proud member of the KLI=-
charghwI' 'utlh