tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Jul 13 20:03:41 2002
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: chotwI'/mang (was: RE: Ten Commandments)
> > i wanted to use "someone who fights" and "warrior",
>
>warrior/fighter - SuvwI'
>someone who fights - Suvbogh ghot
>(depending on the context - Suvbogh vay'
now i understand my confusion (about adjectives): i thought "-bogh"
would be like "-ing", but then it would be an adjective and would
have to be after "ghot" or "vay'". !!! finally.
i'm learning a lot about grammar itself here!
> > 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.
i'll ask him (in ten years or so).
> > 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.
and i have to admit, that's true.
>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.
yes.
>A soldier is a warrior that works for a government (of some sort).
yes.
> > >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.
toH.
is there any word for this type of words? like "quotation", "imitation".
> > 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.
"Recht haben und Recht bekommen sind zwei verschiedene Dinge."
"to be right and to be agreed are two different things."
so i hope that every us-soldier has a firm belief in the american
court, iykwim.
> > >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."
(oops. i missed something out. (do you say so in english?))
!!! mu'mey SuvwI'.
> > 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).
yes. of course.
but between them and you are many reporters, agencies, organizations
and politics. you have to completely believe in all of them if you
want to build your knowledge. of course, asking absolutely directly
is not possible anymore... bad luck. what can we do? maybe nothing
but fight.
as we can see, the word <ghIjwI'> fits. we are scared.
> > 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.
:)
'ach jIlugh 'e' vIQubbe'.
but i don't think i'm right.
>And that leads into a different topic.
</topic>
bye,
sts.