tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Jun 28 10:35:08 2000
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: obtuse question
ghunchu'wI':
> I thought of {ben loDnal} too. I don't think it does a good enough job of
> implying the "ex" idea, though, which is why I didn't suggest it.
Agreed; this could simply refer to a husband one married in the past, which may
or may not be the one you're currently married to.
Also keep in mind that Okrand has *never* used {ben} without a number. Usages
like *{ben law'} or *{ben 'ar?} are relatively common on the mailing list, but
AFAIK Okrand has never used anything like them, however nice they sound to us.
SuStel:
: Sometimes when someone refers to their "Ex," they do so in a contemptuous
: manner. In such a case, /ben loDnal/ and /ben be'nal/ wouldn't be enough.
Well, if the woman hasn't remarried, {loDnalqoq} would certainly be understood
by her friends as referring to the "ex". And if you want contempt, there's
always {petaQvetlh} "that *p'tahk*". Context is everything.
: Sometimes an "Ex" is referred to as someone whom you are no longer married
: to, but on friendly terms with. In this case /ben loDnal/ and /ben be'nal/
Hmm... do Klingons get divorced on friendly terms? It's hard to imagine.
: seem to be sufficient. They no longer explicitly include the concept of
: a severed connection, but in these cases it's not terribly important.
Has anyone suggested {notlh} "be obsolete" yet? Particularly if the old spouse
has been replaced by a newer (i.e. younger) model? <g>
In fact, this might be a case where one could colloquially use {ngo'} "be old
(not new)" WRT people instead of {qan} "be old (not young)". After all, one's
old (former) spouse is not necessarily older in years than one's new spouse --
though IRL s/he frequently is. <G!>
--
Voragh
Ca'Non Master of the Klingons