tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Jul 19 11:34:55 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: RE: wild nature
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: RE: wild nature
- Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 14:34:47 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
- Priority: NORMAL
toy'Qo'bogh Ha'DIbaHmey.
charghwI' 'utlh
On Sun, 18 Jul 1999 23:42:17 -0400 Eric Andeen <[email protected]>
wrote:
> jatlh Ed:
>
> > I had a question concerning nature. Since civilization is an
> > artificial habitat. Would uncivilized also be considered wild.
> > With the diminutive of wild being natural. Both are are
> > considered adjectives or minor verbs. Though there
> > are derivatives for nouns as in wilderness and nature.
>
> For starters, <tay'> is "be together". <tay> is be civilized. I also think
> <tay> can probably only be applied to people, and maybe situations or places
> associated with people - I think it makes very little sense for animals.
>
> > adjectives
> > tay'Qo' wild
>
> Verbs used as adjectives - and don't forget that they are still verbs - can
> only take the suffixes <-be'>, <-Ha'>, and <-qu'>, so <-Qo'> doesn't work.
> In any case <tayQo'> means "refuse to be civilized". It might work for a few
> meanings of "wild", but not the one you are going for.
>
> > tay'Ha' natural
>
> <tayHa'> is "uncivilized". It would fit right in if you were describing the
> primitive barbarian tribes that conquered the Sakrej region - <SaQej Sep> -
> a thousand years ago. That's about the only use that makes sense to me.
>
> > nouns
> > tay'Qo'ghach wilderness
>
> This is literally "refusal to be civilized".
>
> > tay'Ha'wI' nature
>
> "One who is uncivilized". This would almost have to be the aforementioned
> barbarians or similar people.
>
> > {ngem jItIv tay'Qo'bogh} I enjoy the forests which are wild.
>
> Aside from the <tay> problems, you've got the order a bit mixed up here. The
> subject of the <-bogh> clause is <ngem>, so the verb has to go *before*
> <ngem>.
>
>
> The question you are asking - how to say "wild" or "natural" - is a fairly
> difficult one. We don't have a single word with a meaning even close to
> either of these. One word to consider is <nIt> - "pure, unsullied,
> uncorrupted" - found in KGT. Perhaps we simply don't know the vocabulary
> that deals with these concepts yet. Perhaps Klingons basically consider
> *all* forests and animals (except maybe pets <Sajmey>) to be "wild", and
> don't feel a need to comment on it.
>
>
> pagh
> Beginners' Grammarian