tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Oct 13 09:47:04 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Mu'mey chu'
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Mu'mey chu'
- Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 12:45:35 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
- Priority: NORMAL
On 12 Oct 1999 01:56:21 -0000 "Mark E. Shoulson" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> >From: "d'Armond Speers" <[email protected]>
> >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
taboo.
> ~mark
charghwI'