tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Jun 11 16:58:48 1999

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: Love (jIjegh!)

>...If you do not agree with me,
>you disagree with me.  If you agree with me, you do not disagree with me.  It
>is the same in Klingon, but with the root word applying to the opposite idea.

ja' qa'ral:
>Logical--but, as others have said, Klingon ain't Vulcan, nor is English.  I
>think you'll find you use *I agree* and *I don't disagree* in rather different

Context can certainly influence the shade of meaning.  But in isolation,
the ideas of "disagree" and "not agree" are exactly the kind of opposites
of "agree" that the Klingon verb suffix {-be'} expresses perfectly.

>The latter is a qualified, hesitant, even reluctant assent.  Or
>the speaker may be agreeing with a specific statement, while simultaneously
>expressing disagreement in the context of a larger argument.

You're overthinking the situation.  You *can* express exactly these sorts
of vage, wittering, and indecisive concepts in Klingon if you want to, but
it's so much more straightforward to be...well, *straightforward* about it.

>I was aware of the "do incorrectly" sense, but don't see the connection.
>*Misspeak* is not the opposite of *speak*, so I'm not sure how
>*mis-discourage* (in the sense of *discourage incorrectly*, whatever that
>means) can be equated with *encourage*.

The only explanation I can give you would merely be a repetition of what
you say you don't understand.  I hope you will come to understand it the
way I do eventually by yourself, if someone else doesn't come up with a
good way to say what I'm failing to.

> I'd still have to argue that /-Ha'/ can potentially modify verbs in three
>ways.  Thus, /qatungHa'/ may mean, at least in theory, *I no longer discourage
>you*, *I discourage you incorrectly* and *I encourage you*.

I don't know why you keep using the "no longer do something" phrasing for the
suffix {-Ha'}.  That would be expressed using {-be'choH} or {'e' mev} or some
similar construction.  {-Ha'} doesn't mean "stop", it means "un" or "mis" or

And your last two interpretations seem pretty equivalent to me.  In Klingon,
at least, un-discouraging someone is rather obviously the same as encouraging

>I suppose the latter sense would be the default setting because of its higher
>use value.  Based on the TKD listings, this "do the opposite of" sense works
>with /par/ and /tung/ and may or may not with /muS/.

Don't forget {Qey} and {QeyHa'}.  But I'm puzzled at your reluctance to
accept {-Ha'} as able to express "do the opposite of" in general.

>(And /Qoch/ seems to be similarly affected by /-be'/.)

There is apparently a subtle difference between actively disagreeing with
something and passively disagreeing.  The Klingon verb {Qoch} seems to me
to be an action, not a state.  If you were in enthusiastic agreement with
someone, I don't see a problem with saying {QochHa'} instead of {Qochbe'}.

-- ghunchu'wI'

Back to archive top level