tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Jul 23 11:51:23 2002
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: To Have and Have Not
- From: [email protected]
- Subject: Re: To Have and Have Not
- Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 12:49:31 EDT
ghItlh voragh :
>>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.
>Normally, I'd agree with you if we didn't have {pIch vIghajbe'} from TKD.
>Perhaps {De'} "information", {quv} "honor" and {pIch} "fault, blame" are
"semi-
>tangible". You can have or possess {ghaj} them or you can lack {Hutlh}
them.
>The secrecy proverb might just be metaphorical but even so, if {ghaj} is
only used
>with tangible objects - like stars (theoretically!) - it's still a bit odd
that Klingons
>would say that the day has/possesses secrets. Can you grasp a secret?
The line from TKD is sticky, I admit. The proverbs from TKW are, well,
proverbs. Many of them are metaphorical (or at least figurative), and as a
consequence of being proverbs may reflect a frozen style.
But {pIch vIghajbe'} from TKD is a problem. Given the emphasis placed upon
honor and the consequences associated with its absence, I'm reluctant to pin
the weight of all nontangible objects of {ghaj} on a word like "blame."
Which is frustrating, I admit.
Let me toss this out to the list. I raised this flag in response to the
sentence Guido's phrase:
DIch vIghajbe'
I don't have certainty.
Would the use of {Sov} instead of {ghaj} feel better or worse to your Klingon
ear?
Just mulling it over.
Lawrence