tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Jan 19 11:00:52 2002
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: [KLBC] some more questions
- From: [email protected]
- Subject: Re: [KLBC] some more questions
- Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2002 11:00:44 EST
ghItlh PeHruS:
> > Perhaps this would be better:
> > > Heghbej Hoch nuvpu''e' ngaSbogh loSmaH qelI'qam chuq.
> >
> > I forgot all about ngaS.
> >
>
> Keep on forgetting about ngaS. ngaS is used for "to contain something inside
> something else." It does not have the abstract meaning.
Do you have canon to support this statement? My TKD
says {ngaS} = "contain (have inside)". Close enough to
your gloss above, I guess, but where does it say that
it can't have an abstract meaning?
I've been wrestling with "House of Usher" for the Poe
Project. If I wasn't able to use some concepts as
abstracts, I wouldn't be able to talk about anything.
And I daresay the same would be true for real Klingons.
Languages are full of words that are in origin concrete,
but which are also used poetically or metaphorically.
Why would Klingon be any different?
In fact, we just had a recent example: {'aqroS} and
{rav} to mean "maximum" and "minimum". If this isn't
using a concrete image to express an abstract concept,
then I don't know what is.
-- ter'eS