tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Feb 09 20:10:47 2001

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

RE: chay' pIm {-be'} {-Ha'} je


nejwI': 
> > [...] Klingon insult: "Your breath reeks like the dishonored 
> > still-rotting scattered corpses of your ancestors."
> >
> > First I considered: {He'So'qu' tlhuHlIj; nontaHneSbe'bogh no'lI'
> > lommey rur.} then I considered: {He'So'qu' tlhuHlIj; nontaHneSHa'bogh 
> > no'lI' lommey rur.}

De'vID: 
> > That's not how {-neS} is used.  {-neS} is used to show respect by the
> > speaker to the listener, and in some cases (with some verbs of
> > fighting) indicate fighting to the death.  I'm not sure what effect 
> > {-be'} would have on {-neS}, but it's likely not what you intend.  

nejwI':
> I'm unable to find anything in my texts which says {-be'} can't be
> appended to {-neS}. 

I didn't say that {-be'} can't be appended to {-neS}.  I said that 
the meaning is likely not what you intend, which is "the dishonoured
[...] corpses of your ancestors".  For that, {-neS} (with or without
{-be'}) just wouldn't work, because it doesn't mean "to be honoured".
Use the verb {quv}.

> Is this something which a consensus of the body of Klingon
> speakers decided? I'd assumed the meaning would be the inverse - in this
> case, a non-honorific. 

And if that assumption were correct, {nontaHneSbe'bogh no'lI'
lommey rur} would mean, "it resembles your ancestors' corpses
which continue to be rotten, your dis-honour".  The honour/dishonour 
is still being applied to the listener, not to the listener's 
ancestors' corpses, which is what you indicated you wanted.

> While it might be true that it doesn't mean
> "dishonorably" (more like "not honorably"), 

The problem here is that {-neS} does not mean "honorably" to begin
with.  That would be {batlh}.  {-neS} when used in address is
used to show respect.  So while {-neS} with {-be'} *might* show
disrespect to the *listener*, it wouldn't apply to the listeners'
*ancestors*.

> an honorific has been
> negated, so that should mean something non-positive. I do see now 
> in TKD that it is used only in addressing someone of higher rank; so 
> you can fight to the death only with a social/military/political 
> superior? 

See KGT p. 49.  There it is explained how {-neS} is used with verbs 
of fighting.
 
> >Also, I'm not sure
> >where you're getting the idea of "scattered" from.  Maybe it's from 
> >the {-mey} on {lom}.  But a {lom} is not a body part (correct me
> >rammarians if I'm wrong on this), and would normally take a {-mey}.
> 
> NP. I had seen a body (even in death) as being the biggest part possible
> (the whole being the biggest part of any item), but I'm familiar with
> other languages which treat the body as a different class from the 
> body parts. Is there a reference for this? Or it is true by consensus?

Well a {lom} is not a {porgh}, though it used to be.  There's no rule
that I know of, but the examples we have show that things that used
to be body parts but no longer are, take the suffix {-mey}.  For example,
on KGT p.58 it refers to {veDDIrmey}.  There's a post by Marc Okrand
explaining that body parts may lose their association with bodies
after the creature has died.

> >nuqDaq bIchIl'eghpu'?
> 
> parmaqqaywI' molDaq jIchIl'eghpu'. jInej'eghtaH.

bISam'eghjaj!

--
De'vID

--
tlhIngan-Hol FAQ and unsubscribe instructions:
http://www.bigfoot.com/~dspeers/klingon/faq.htm
To unsubscribe, send e-mail to [email protected]

Back to archive top level