tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Mar 03 10:01:51 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Dap naQ
Holtej jang peHruS:
>Thanks for telling me what ghunchu'wI' wrote means something other than what
>he literally wrote. I need to hear from ghunchu'wI' himself what he means, if
>he thinks I mis-read his writing. Klingon is a rather literal language.
>
>Is this communique clear enough?
Klingon has idiom. d'Armond recognized my meaning perfectly. See TKW
page 171 if {ghIlab ghewmey tIbuSQo'} means nothing to you.
English too has idiom. If the phrase "used for good and not for evil"
doesn't strike you as cliché, I suppose you might take offense at it.
But that's only partly my fault for using language fully rather than
at a limited level. At least some of the blame must fall on the one
who claims to be well-versed in language but fails to recognize common
idioms and clichés.
I must now consider that you might not recognize the significance of what
I wrote yesterday under the subject {bIQ'a'Daq 'oHtaH 'etlh'e'}. That's
another idiom, explained on pages 121 and 122 of Klingon for the Galactic
Traveler. It's based on the story of Kahless's brother Morath throwing
their father's sword into the ocean, where it was irrevocably lost. My
intent was to emphasize that I have come to recognize that the two of us
are never going to be able to communicate effectively about anything, on
any level, so I'm not even going to try anymore. I won't go as far as
the two brothers did -- I won't refuse to speak to you. But I'm sure not
going to take your proclamations about the Klingon language seriously as
long as they aren't directed toward communicating and expressing ideas in
understandable ways.
-- ghunchu'wI'