Re: Love

[Carleton Copeland <copeland@eycis.com>]

jatlh ghunchu'wI':

>There's no reason to think the existence of specific roots and not their
>opposites indicates that one condition is more "normal" than the other.
>English is full of fun examples where an "anti-" term is the common one
>and the "root" word is never used for the opposite meaning:  disheveled,
>unkempt, disgruntled, mistaken, decant, etc.

I'll admit I'm no linguist, but it does seem reasonable to me that a root would be prior and more basic than its prefixed and suffixed forms.  I'd be surprised to learn, say, that the English word *agree* had been formed by shortening the original *disagree* (though something a little like this did happen with *inflammable*).  I'm going further, though, by suggesting that the Klingon *concept* of disagreement (Qoch) is more basic than the *concept* of agreement (Qochbe').  Evidence of this (not proof) is the lack of a simple and direct alternative.  If English lacked words for *neat* and *tidy*, and one had to say *undisheveled* to get the thought across, I think I'd worry about the level of personal hygiene among English speakers.  

My point (and I don't think you disagreed) is this:  if /muSHa'/ is translated as *love* in canon (is it?), and we know no other verb for *love* in a verb-centered language, could it be that /muSHa'/ does in fact mean *to love*?  Perhaps, when appended to certain verbs, /-Ha'/ and /-be'/ don't just undo or negate the action but transform it into its opposite.  (This is what SuStel's recent explanation of /parHa'/ implied to me.)   Then /muSHa'/ could become as strong and independent a word in Klingon as, say, *independent* is in English.

>ghaytan "I love you" mughlaH <qamuSHa'>.  reH lugh'a'?  ghobe'.

jIQochbe'laH.

>If there's a pun in {muSHa'}, I don't get it.

all that mushy stuff

>Since the word has never been used by Okrand, I doubt that any humor value 
>you see in it is intentional.

jIQochlaHbe'.

qa'ral