Re: jIghIQta' / KLBC

["William H. Martin" <whm2m@virginia.edu>]

On Wed, 08 Sep 1999 21:28:13 -0800 Pillow <shebeast@gci.net> 
wrote:
> 
> "Andeen, Eric" wrote:
> 
> > ja' DloraH:
> >
> > > jIchegh (qaStaHvIS wa' Hogh jIghIQ 'e' Daqaw'a'?)
> > > wanI' vItIvqu'
> >
> > jatlh pIl'o':
> >
> > DloraH, yIqIm:
> > > lenglIj  DataHta'mo'  'e'  qaHoy'.
> >
> > 'oy'.
> >
> > None of the meanings of <taH> make sense here. I suspect you meant <ta'>.
> > You also meant just <qaHoy'> rather than <'e' qaHoy'>, yes?
> 
> I mean to say [I congratulate you because you endured your trip]
> why does <taH> as in "survive/endure" not work here?
>            lenglIj DataHta'mo'  'ej  qaHoy'.     <does this work?
>                                                                     pIl'o'

Most would likely favor {SIQ} for that. You have misquoted the 
definition slightly, and since both {taH} and {SIQ} have the 
"endure" meaning, we tend to look at the differences in these 
definitions to see if the different English meanings of 
"endure" are separated out by these accompanying Klingon 
definitions. {taH} has "continue, go on, survive" (which 
generally don't sound like something requiring a direct 
object) while {SIQ} does not. {SIQ} has "bear" (which 
generally does require a direct object) while {taH} does not.

While there is no certainty about this, I suspect that many of 
us tend to think of {SIQ} having a direct object, while {taH} 
tends not to. So, if you endure something, most of us favor 
{SIQ}. That's an observation, not a prescription. We may very 
well be wrong about this.

All the canon examples I can think of with {taH} have no direct 
object. I'm pretty sure {SIQ} has been used with direct objects. 
voragh?

Anyway, whether we are right or not, likely we would have 
understood you had you used {SIQ}, or we would have understood:

bIghIQta'. bIchegh. bItaHmo' qaHoy'.

Again, that's just one person's spin on it.

charghwI'