tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri May 18 09:22:51 2001
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: When writing Klingon fiction...
- From: Will Martin <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: When writing Klingon fiction...
- Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 12:21:12 -0400
Whether your proposition is accurate or not, I don't think you have
sufficiently proved it with this evidence. It is always risky to try to
presume a cause by observing an effect, since some other cause can always
exist for that same effect. You learn that in Symbolic Logic 101.
Note that {batlhHa'} only exists as an adverbial meaning "dishonorably",
while {quvHa'} means "to be dishonored" and {quvHa'ghach} means "dishonor".
If you want a noun for "honor", {batlh} or {quv} both work equally well,
but if you want a noun for dishonor, you can't do that with {batlh}. It
simply is not available to you. You have to use {quvHa'ghach}.
Given that, I would make NO logical conclusions about any symantic
differences between the noun {batlh} and the noun {quv} based upon the use
of when each is used with {-Ha'}.
charghwI' 'utlh
> From: "Rohan Fenwick" <[email protected]>
> Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 23:11:02
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Regarding the difference between <<quv>> and <<batlh>>; I believe Voragh
> may be right in distinguishing them as "personal" honour versus
> "general" honour. His post reminded me of a text I have: a Klingon
> version of the myth of Kahless, Morav/Morath (I'm unsure of the
> spelling) and Gekla <<ghetlh'aH>>. Whenever <<quv>> is used, it is used
> in the construction <<quvHa'>> or <<quvHa'ghach>>, "be dishonoured" and
> "dishonour". So I'd agree, because these words generally refer to single
> people (Kahless and Morav/Morath in the story), and <<batlh>> is only
> used to refer to general honour, right at the beginning. qatlho', Voragh!
>
> Qapla' 'ej Satlho'
>
> ro'Han
>