tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Jul 12 12:07:45 2002
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: chotwI'/mang (was: RE: Ten Commandments)
>I am not aware that there is a German version of KGT (Klingon for the
i have the TKD in german and "Klingonisch fuer Fortgeschrittene - Der
offizielle Sprach- und Reisefuehrer". hm, this could be "Klingon for
progressors (?) - The official guide for languange and travelers").
both by mark ocrand.
> > >Because Daj is a "be" verb, a stative verb, we can probably
>> >still put it on DoS.
>> >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?
>/Daj/ is being used as an adjective here. "interesting target".
>"Why does my opinion cause me to become an interesting target for the
the adjective follows the noun, right?
does an adjective has to be intransitive?
> > >> 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.
>I don't understand your use of /ghach/. It is a suffix that gets attached
>to a verb (along with other suffixes) and the whole word becomes a noun.
>naDHa' - "discommend" (v)
>naDHa'ghach - "discommendation" (n)
thank you. i learnt it wrong. now i hope not to confuse it anymore.
maybe i should have written: "Suv 'Iv" - someone who fights. i wanted
to use "someone who fights" and "warrior", but maybe there's no
difference at all and my argumentation is wrong. i mean, maybe i
don't have the right concept of the meaning of warrior, and instead i
try to assign the idea i have incorrectly to the word "warrior".
my dictionary says:
warrior - a person who fights in a battel or war
soldier - a member of an army, especially one who is not an officer
so anyway, if the soldier fights, he's a warrior. you're right.
my mistake was to think that as a warrior doesn't have the explicit
conotation of a member of an army, i hoped that he could be so
independent to decide what to fight for on his own, without being
manipulated or instrumentalized.
>Oh, wait... you mean /ghaH/ "he" don't you? And instead of /maj/ you want
right... and right. :)
>In the last sentence, your subjects and objects don't match in the klingon
>Suvbogh neH nuv ghaHchugh mang'e', SuvwI' ghaH mang'e'; 'ach mang ghaHbe'
yes. thank you. :)
>qum toy'bogh SuvwI' ghaH mang'e'.
>"A soldier is a warrior that serves a government"
>(whether the government is officially recognized or not)
> > >jIjatlh /mang jIH. nIHoH ghIjwI'pu' chaq 'e' vIchaw'/.
don't you have to say the sentence /.../ first and then <jIjatlh>?
it's the object of your saying.
> > ? "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
> > offense?)
> > chaw'lIj tlhob'a' ghIjwI'pu'.
>> (do terrorists ask your permission?)
>You, at that time, said that soldiers are murderers.
>I said "I am a soldier. Perhaps I should allow the terrorists to kill
>you.", as opposed to me (attempting to) killing them first.
see, i made a mistake, and i want apologize for it. i didn't mean to
say that soldiers are murderers.
as written above, i thought there was a difference between a soldier
and a warrior, which would mean that there was a difference between
the action of killing. if a warrior was someone who independently
decides what to kill or die for, then a soldier on the other hand
would be an instrument of the government, that never took the
responsibility for what he does. he'd kill because he's too weak to
make his own decissions, which would mean to kill whatever they tell
him to kill, which for me is a crime. crime + kill = murder. but this
conotation doesn't exist. a soldier is a member of the army. a
warrior (old-fashioned word, isn't it?) is someone who fights in a
battle or in a war. that's the end of the story. there is no "but he
should have known better".
it reminds me on a joke i heard yesterday:
there are no unhappy marriages. if there were, then there would be
happy ones, too. (so the word "marriage" is free of context about
> > 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?)
>Hegh is "die". HoH is "kill".
>The subject in the prefix vI- is "I", not "you".
>/laH/ is a noun and a verb suffix, not a verb on its own.
>meqchaj vISov vIneHbej.
>'utchugh, yIHub; ghIq meqchaj yIghoj; ghIq 'utchugh, yIHIv.
>meqchaj vISovlaw' 'e' vIHar. meqchaj vIvuvlaH. meqchaj luHarchu'qu'mo',
>vIHoHnISchugh, batlh Hegh.
(certainly i want to know their reason.
when it's neccessary, defend them; so learn their reason; so if it's
neccessary, attack them.
i believe to apparently know their reason. i can respect their
reason. i don't hate my enemy, because they really clearly believe in
'ach nuq 'oH meqchaj'e'.
(but what is their reason?)
meqchaj DaSovlaw''e' 'e' Dajatlh. chay' DaSovlaHbej'e'. 'Iv Datlhob.
(you said that you _seemingly_ know their reason. how can you
_definitely_ know their reason? whom do you ask?)
> > >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.)
>"A world of honored warriors is more preferable than a world of dishonored
>> (i agree.)
(i still 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.)
>"opinion" is /vuD/.
>The pronoun 'e' can be only an object, not a subject. So switch your object
>and subject, making vuDwIj the subject.
>qabwI' chaH HotlaHbe'bogh nuv'e' 'e' 'oH vuDwIj'e'.
>"The people which can not feel, they are the bad guys. My opinion is that."
beatiful. thank you.
>But then we have the problem with /Hot/. /Hot/ is "touch, feel" as in
>placing your hand on the surface of the table; you 'feel' the table.
>We don't have a word for "feel" in the emotional sense.
>> reH HotnIS SuvwI'.
>> (a warrior always have to feel.)
>Same with /Hot/.
> > >chunwI' DIvwI' je wIv Qun.
>> (god selects the leaders and the innocent.)
>/Dev/ is "lead". /DIv/ is "guilty".
>"God will choose the guilty and the innocent."
> > DaH jIQoch.
>> (now i disagree.)
>> i don't believe that god wants us to form empires,
>Which is why I say He will choose who is who.
ok... but what does it mean? you can say that god knows who's guilty
and who's not, but what about us? shall we continue to be guilty and
innocent? i think god shouldn't be the only one to know.
you cut the last part of what i said. i repeat and add: we have to
listen to our heart / soul / god, or we won't ever know who's guilty
and who's not. i think we can see that.
> > thank you for the conversation.
>How long have you been studying klingon?
>You did quite well in this conversation.
>A few misunderstandings, but it went well.
:) thank you.
the most i learnt while translating the letters of this list, and
answering to it. i red the KD twice before.
and i'm making a dictonary from klingon to esperanto, which makes me
reflect a bit about it.