tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Oct 13 09:47:04 1999

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: Mu'mey chu'

On 12 Oct 1999 01:56:21 -0000 "Mark E. Shoulson" <> 

> >From: "d'Armond Speers" <>
> >Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 17:18:01 -0600
> >
> >
> >> I wouldn't consider it culturally taboo, at least for Klingons.
> >
> >TKD 4.2.2:
> >
> >"This suffix is rarely used with a prefix meaning I or we. Though it is
> >grammatically correct, it is culturally taboo."
> To beat a dead horse, TKD 4.3:
>  pIHoHvIpbe'qu'		we are NOT afraid to kill you
>  pIHoHvIpqu'be'		we are not AFRAID to kill you
>  pIHoHqu'vIpbe'		we are not afraid to KILL you

It's nice to cite page numbers when you give an example like 
this that is several pages after the beginning of the section.

>  The first word might be used after an enemy challenged the bravery of the
>  speaker.  The second might be followed by an explanation such as "We are
>  not willing to kill you you because we require your services."  The third
>  would be used to emphasize killing, as opposed to some other form of
>  punishment.
> Note he says "would be used" not "could be used but wouldn't because of the
> taboo in section 4.2.2."

I think the most important thing that doesn't seem to be getting 
any attention here is that {-vIp} and {-be'} are being used in a 
combination here that would release a Klingon from the taboo. In 
all cases, we are saying that there is a lack of fear. 
Certainly, that is not taboo. Saying that we fear would be quite 
> ~mark


Back to archive top level