tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed May 12 19:19:23 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: SachtaH Holmaj!
- From: [email protected]
- Subject: Re: SachtaH Holmaj!
- Date: Thu, 13 May 1999 04:11:12 +0200
jatlh qa'ral:
>jatlh muHwI' HovqIj je':
{je}
>
>>{qamuSHa'} does not really say "love", but literally "I un-hate you" or "I
>>don't hate you", and by the way, it's just too long to be klingon. ... How
do you >>like {bangwI' SoH}? "You are my loved one."
>
>>vIparHa'. I like it. It's one of the rare cases in Klingon where a noun
>>centered statement doesn't sound clumsy or weak.
>
>Perhaps I'm belaboring a point that HovqIj has made more subtly, but I
>wonder if we should be so literal as to think of /muSHa'/ as *not hate*.
{muSHa'} is not just a simple negation of {muS}. That would be {muSbe'} -
"not hate".
>What intrigues me about /muSHa'/, /parHa'/, and /tungHa'/ (any other
>examples?) is their evocation of a culture in which it is more "normal" to
>hate, dislike and discourage than the reverse. This would seem appropriate
>for a language that (jatlh worIv)
{wo'rIv}
>did not have a word for *peace*
>until the 23d or 24th century. Consider also the positive feel of words
>like *independent* or *individual* as compared with their negative
>construction.
I think you have a point. How about translating {muSHa'} with "*dis-hate"?
The prefix "dis-" is usually used to mark opposite meanings.
>As for /bangwI' SoH/, viparHa' jIH je!
{vIparHa' je jIH}
>
>P.S. Where did /roj/ come from, anyway? I would have preferred /ghobHa'/.
>
>P.S.S. /muSHa'/ is yet another pun (or would be if it weren't a
>time-honored Klingon word).
>
>qa'ral
2>
>
HovqIj