tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Jul 22 14:15:53 2002
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
To Have and Have Not (was "qel" yIqel )
- From: [email protected]
- Subject: To Have and Have Not (was "qel" yIqel )
- Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 13:24:03 EDT
ghItlh ghuy'Do wa':
>I'm not exactly sure, but that is an interesting topic,
>and we should talkabout it at some point.
>
>DIch vIghajbe', 'ach Dajqu' qechvetlh, 'ej tugh wIqelnIS. {{:-)
The first phrase here raises a red flag for me.
"Have" is one those verbs (like "do" and "make") which so often take on extra
duty in a language, but by no means all languages. Do we have canonical
examples of Klingons "possessing" abstractions, or are all canon uses of
{ghaj} limited to things one could grasp or hold or take ownership of?
We've come at this before in Klingon, if I recall correctly (and I'm sure
several people will leap forward if I don't), in the instance of attributing
age to someone. English and of course other languages use "be" for this (I am
42 years old). Spanish and other languages use "have" (tengo cuarenta y dos
anos).
My preference is to be more conservative with Klingon and not prescribe
non-literal uses to verbs (like {ghaj}) unless I'm clearly speaking
metaphorically.
Lawrence