tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Jul 12 19:04:48 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
> >Galactic Traveler).
>
> 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.
Daj. Interesting.
> > > >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
> >terrorists?"
>
> the adjective follows the noun, right?
Yes.
> does an adjective has to be intransitive?
Yes. It is what we sometimes call a stative verb; the thing is not DOING
anything, it is simply BEING something. Many of the relevent glosses
include "be" (at least in the english TKD). tuj - "be hot"; Doq - "be red";
etc.
> maybe i should have written: "Suv 'Iv" - someone who fights.
That is the question "Who fights?".
'Iv is only a question word.
> i wanted to use "someone who fights" and "warrior",
warrior/fighter - SuvwI'
someone who fights - Suvbogh ghot
(depending on the context - Suvbogh vay'
> 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
You will need to ask Okrand what definitions he intended.
> 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.
My view: SuvwI' "warrior" is based on the word "fight"; a fighter, someone
who fights, whether it be for good or evil.
When we hear "warrior" most people envision a noble and brave warrior of
fairytales; someone that fights when there is a noble cause to fight for.
But a warrior can murder. He can be a bully, a mafia thug, up for hire.
This being in the context of Star Trek, we are to think of klingon warriors
who in general are honorable.
A soldier is a warrior that works for a government (of some sort).
> >qum toy'bogh SuvwI' ghaH mang'e'.
> >"A soldier is a warrior that serves a government"
> >(whether the government is officially recognized or not)
>
> HISlaH.
>
> > > >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.
The words refering to the speech event like "lecture", "story", etc does go
before the verb as the object.
The quote of what's actually being said can go before OR after, and the
prefix does not mark it as the object.
> 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.
Well, a soldier does do what his government tells him. An evil or scared
soldier of an evil government can do evil things.
In the US our military code includes "follow lawful orders". If a soldier
feels that killing a particular group of people is unlawful/inmoral he is
allowed to not follow those orders. Later in court, if the orders are found
to be lawful, he gets in some trouble for not following orders; if the
orders are unlawful, the officer giving the orders gets in serious trouble.
> >meqchaj vISov vIneHbej.
> >'utchugh, yIHub; ghIq meqchaj yIghoj; ghIq 'utchugh, yIHIv.
> >meqchaj vISovlaw' 'e' vIHar. meqchaj vIvuvlaH. meqchaj luHarchu'qu'mo',
> >vIHoHnISchugh, batlh Hegh.
> >jaghwI' vImuSbe'.
>
> (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
> their reason.)
Watch the punctuation and all the words.
"Certainly I want to know their reason.
If it is necessary, defend; then learn their reason; then if
necessary, attack.
I believe that I apparently know their reason. I am able to
respect their reason. Because they really completely believe
their reason, if I need to kill them, they will die honorably.
I do not hate my enemies."
> meqchaj DaSovlaw''e' 'e' Dajatlh.
> (you said that you _seemingly_ know their reason.
The suffix -'e' is a noun suffix. It doesn't go on the verb.
When you say [somebody said "blah blah"], the quote is not the object of
jatlh, and likewise is not represented by the pronoun 'e'.
Also, as far as we know, the quote is a direct quote. If you quote me as
saying "I...", you don't replace it with "You...". Look at my prefixes
below:
- [meqchaj vISovlaw'] bIjatlh
OR (because the quote can come before or after)
- bIjatlh [meqchaj vISovlaw']
> chay' DaSovlaHbej'e'. 'Iv Datlhob.
> how can you _definitely_ know their reason? whom do you ask?)
I'm sure if I tried to ask them personally I would be killed. I admit I'm
building my knowledge on what I heard them tell a reporter (a reporter that
they did let in to report the story).
> > > >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."
>
> oops.
>
> > > 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.
teH; 'ach lugh chaH 'e' luQub Hoch.
True; but everybody thinks they're right.
And that leads into a different topic.
DloraH
http://www2.rpa.net/~cheesbro