tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Jun 10 10:55:44 2001
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: no'
I'm not sure about this. If {no'} referred to a SINGLE ancestor, obviously,
we'd be talking about a being capable of using language, but in earlier
discussions, we established that {qorDu'}, being a GROUP is NOT considered
to be a being capable of using language. We'd talk about families as
{qorDu'mey} without insulting anyone for the same reason we'd talk about
{ghommey} and not {*ghompu'*}. Since {no'} refers to "ancestors", this may
very well be quite similar to {qorDu'}. The members of the group are capable
of using language, but the group itself is not. Members can speak from the
group, but the group itself does not speak with one voice. It must speak
through its members.
muja'laHbe' no'wIj. muja'nIS qempa'Du'wI'. muja'chugh cha' vaj
jIyajlaHbe'ba'. jatlh wa'. rInDI' jatlhlaH latlh.
charghwI' 'utlh
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2001 7:26 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: no'
>
>
> jatlh ghunchu'wI':
> >It's not uninformative. It gives a translation using "him/her"
> instead of
> >"it", clearly implying that {no'} is people.
>
> The English translation is not necessarily indicative of the Klingon
> grammar. In English, an ancestor is indubitably a "he" or a "she," not
> an "it." However, this may or may not be the case in Klingon. For
> example, in English, we might say, "I don't like my targ because HE is
> stupid." In Klingon, one would say: {targhwIj vIpar QIpmo'.} This may
> not be the best example, but it demonstrates my point.
>
> However, I do agree that {no'} should be treated as a being capable of
> language.
>
> DujHoD
> [email protected]
>
>