tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Jul 09 08:35:28 2002

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: chotwI'/mang (was: RE: Ten Commandments)

>  > >> >>  not chot SuvwI'. chot mang.
>>  >> >>  (a warrior never murders. a soldier does.)
>>  >> >
>>  >> >'e' DaHarbej'a'?  Do'Ha'.  SoH nIHoH Daw'chu'qu'wI'pu'  chaq 'e'
>>  >>
>>  >>  nuq Daw'.
>>  >>  (what revolution?)
>>  >
>>  >The suffixes attached tell you I used the verb Daw',
>>  >"one who really completely revolts"
>>  >It was the best I could think of for terrorist.
>>  i see. hm. a terrorist would be less terrifying if he finally did a
>>  revolution (in that case the revolution would be completed). the
>>  ineffectiveness of terrorists makes them so scary. anyway, a
>>  terrorist doesn't revolt completely. so it's not a Daw'wI', is he?
>KGT p49 says that -chu', when used with some verbs of fighting, implies that
>the fight is to the death.  This doesn't work for all fighting verbs, and
>looking at it now I don't think it works that way with Daw'; but that's what
>I was aiming for; they kill their enemies, and they die doing it.  Hmm, that
>might also get the -neS suffix (KGT p49).  Daw'chu'neSwI'.  But I admit this
>is not the best choice.

please tell me the section, not the page (the german version has 
another length).

for the <Daw'chu'neSwI'> it's of course honorably to die killing, but 
for us? is "neS" a non-subjective suffix?

>  > {anyway}, qatlh, <HeHmoH> <chot> vIQubmo', ghIjwI'pu' vIDaj.
>>  (why i'm interesting for terrorists due to that i think about kllling
>>  and murdering?)
>>  ((anyway, i don't see why my opinion about killing and murdering
>>  would make me an interesting target for a terrorist. could you
>>  explain to me?))
>I'm guessing you mean HoH, not HeH.
>"Why, because I think <cause to kill> <murder>, I be interesting the

it's good that i always add some english.

>Qub is "think", not "think about".
>Your english mentions the word "opinion", for which we have vuD.
>"target" DoS.


>qatlh ghIjwI'pu' DoS mumojmoH vuDwIj?


>Because Daj is a "be" verb, a stative verb, we can probably still put it on
>qatlh ghIjwI'pu'(vaD) DoS Daj mumojmoH vuDwIj?

two verbs? "why my opinion makes me to interest a terrorists' target?"
what's wrong with my interpretation?

>Without -vaD, /ghIjwI'pu' DoS/ is a noun-noun for "the terrorists' target".
>With -vaD, /ghIjwI'pu'vaD DoS/ is "target for terrorists".
>>  >  > nuq DaHar SoH?
>>  >>  (and what's your opinion about this?)
>>  >
>>  >See what accompanied my signature.
>>  your signature says that you are an army sergeant.
>>  is it your opinion to be an army sergeant?
>Huh?  I'm not sure what you mean here.

:) ok.
i meant: your signature was: ">DloraH, Beginners' Grammarian  (and 
army sergeant)"
when i asked your opinion about killing, murdering, soldiers and 
warriors, you refered to that signiture. but it's no opinion.
i didn't want to presume anything about army sergeants and their 
opinions, so i wanted to ask you explicitely.

>  > see that our cultures might differ in this
>>  point (army sergeant). i need an explanation.
>Oh?  neghvaD <chotwI'> luper nughlIj?

(weird, isn't it?)

the last time we found army and police and "germans first" very cool, 
it led to destroy and divide our country, and our people. this caused 
some scepticism against all this. the frase "soldiers are murderers" 
was discussed some years ago. i'm not sure how it ended, whether you 
can legally say it officially or not. maybe you need to say "soldiers 
are _potentially_ murderers". but then it's correct, they say. (of 
cause there are germans who are very proud of being german and of 
having the possibility to defend germany against... whom? - anyway, 
we call them "neo-nazis". (ok, this was a little harsh, but 
exaggeration is illustration))

>  > >  > rap'a' SuvwI' mang je?
>>  >  > (is a warrior and a soldier the same thing?)
>>  >>
>>  >>  i think a klingon warrior less dependant on the society than a
>  > >>  soldier is. (a soldier is always paid, hence the word (at least in
>  > >>  german the "Sold" is the money that you pay to a soldier), isn't it?)
>  > >
>  > >I agree with this here.  But this doesn't mean  chot mang.
>>  vaj rapbe' SuvwI' mang je.
>>  (so a soldier and a warrior are not the same thing.)
>>  vaj, nuq 'oS mang.
>>  (so what does a soldier do?)


Suvghach neH ghachbogh mang('e'), maj SuvwI' ghach mang('e'). 'ach 
SuvwI' ghachbe' mang('e').
(if a soldier is someone who simply fights, then a soldier is a 
warrior. but a warrior isn't a soldier.

>  > vaj, qatlh HeHmoHwI' chotwI' je rapbe'.
>>  (so why killing and murdering isn't the same thing?)
>Object-Verb-Subject.  What's not being the same?
>Why do you have -moH on what I guess is suppose to be HoH?  "cause to kill".
>vay' HoHlaH nuv 'ej chotbe'.

i wanted to say: "HeghmoHwI'", but of cause "HeHwI'" works, too.

i should have said:

qatlh rapbe' HeHwI' chotwI' je.
(why a killer and a murderer aren't the same thing?)

>  > >  > qamawneHbe'.
>>  >  > (no offense.)
>>  >
>>  >/neH/ isn't a suffix.
>>  so let's take a suffix!
>>  qamawqangbe'.
>>  (no offense.)
>or:  qamawbe' vIneH
>or:  qamaw vIneHbe'

ok. but after all this grammar: i really didn't mean to offend you!!

>And now vuDwIj.


>bIjatlh /rap chotwI' mang je/.

DaH 'oH jIjatlhtaHbe'.
(now i wouldn't continue to say this.)

>jIjatlh /mang jIH.  nIHoH ghIjwI'pu' chaq 'e' vIchaw'/.

? "i say: i'm a soldier. i allow that maybe terrorists kill you. 
("kill you" is offensive, according my e-mail program. was this an 

chaw'lIj tlhob'a' ghIjwI'pu'.
(do terrorists ask your permission?)

>bIjatlh /qatlh muHoH neH ghIjwI'pu'?/.


>choyajHa'law'.  DuQanmeH SaHbe'chugh negh, nIHoHlaH ghIjwI'pu'.  qatlh nIHoH
>neH ghIjwI'pu'?  meqchaj vISovbe'.  Hoch HoH neH ghIjwI'pu'.  Qe'Daq
>bISaHchugh SoH, nIHoH neH.  DaHjaj ghIjwI'pu' law' lutu'lu'.  jey negh 'e'
>nID negh.  jeymeH, chaq ghIjwI'pu' law' HoHnIS negh.  QanmeH 'ej HubmeH
>HoHchugh mang (vay' joq), chotbe'.

(you apparently misunderstand me. if soldiers do not care in order to 
protect you, the terrorists can kill you. why terrorists want to kill 
you? i don't know their reason. terrorists want to kill everyone. if 
you're in a restaurant, they want to kill you. today there are many 
terrorists. soldiers try to defeat them. in order to defeat them, 
soldiers may have to kill many terrorists. if a soldier (or somebody 
(else)) kills in order to protect and to defend, he doesn't murder.)

maj. jIQochbe'.
(ok. i agree to this.)

'ach nIHegh nID ghIjwI'pu'. vIlaHchugh, vIHeghpa', meq vISov vIneH'a'.
(but terrorists want to kill you. don't you want to know the reason 
before you kill them, if you can?)

>pupbe' negh.  pupbe' qo'vam.

(soldiers aren't perfect. this world isn't perfect.)


>SuvwI' quv  qo' qaq law'  veS quvHa' qo' qaq puS.

(the world of honor of a warrior is more preferable than the world of 
the unhonor of war.)

(i agree.)

>'ach qo'vamDaq qabwI' lutu'lu'.  'ut negh.

(but there are bad guys in this world. soldiers are neccessary.)

hm. HISlaH. 'ej luDwIj 'oH qabwI' chaH HotlaHbe'ghach('e') 'e'('e').
(hm. yes. and it's my opinion that it's those who are incabable of 
feeling that are bad guys.)

reH HotnIS SuvwI'.
(a warrior always have to feel.)

>chotlaH negh; 'ach chotlaH vay'!  chotlaHtaH mang ghaHbe'bogh vay'!
>chotwI' jIHbe'.

(a soldier can murder. but anyone can murder! anyone who's not a 
soldier continues to be able to kill.)


>wo'DajvaD Suv tlhIngan SuvwI'.

(a klingon warrior fights for his empire.)

>SuvwI' jIH.  wo'wIjvaD jISuv jIH.

(i'm a warrior. i fight for my empire.)

>chunwI' DIvwI' je wIv Qun.

(god selects the leaders and the innocent.)

DaH jIQoch.
(now i disagree.)

i don't believe that god wants us to form empires, to be leaders and 
innocents (or do you mean ignorants?). but maybe god simply wants us 
to be human warriors, fighting for one human empire, with all our 
heart. maybe it's _our_ will to do this. maybe we don't need to ask 
ourselves, what would god want us to do, but what does our heart 
tells us to do. maybe god is in our hearts. (kirk, star trek v).

>I'm probably forgetting to mention something in there.

there's always time to add something.

thank you for the conversation.


Back to archive top level