tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Jun 10 21:55:21 2002

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: vajHom

 > >You can't take just part of a definition. If a definition has multiple
 > > words/phrases, you have to blend them all together.
 > The 'or' in Okrand's phrasing would indicate that you can in this case 
(judging > by the standard usage of commas in conjunction with 'or' in 
American English).  > As a further indication, consider the idioms 
{bo'DaghHom lo'} and {bo'Dagh'a'
 > lo'} and the deifnition for {Qa'Hom} (type of animal (similar to a 
{Qa'}, but
 > smaller). These seem to indicate that {-Hom} and {-'a'} can mean 'small' 
or 'big', > respectively.

The difference as I see it, is that while a Qa' mach is smaller than a Qa', 
it's still a Qa', but a Qa'Hom is no longer a Qa'.  A loD mach is still a 
man, but a loDHom is not yet a man.

Sometimes there is no English vocabulary to cover the distinction between X 
and XHom so we use "little" to distinguish, but it's really no longer the 
same thing.

Consider bo'Dagh'a' and boDaghHom.  Okrand translated the idioms as "use a 
big scoop" and "use a small scoop."  But I suspect bo'Degh'a' means more to 
a Klingon than bo'Degh tIn.

To go back to the original question, what does the person mean by "little 
warrior"?  Does he intend to convey physical size?  Someone who fights a 
bit, or not too seriously, or only in jest might well be appropriately 
named vajHom.  And  "little warrior" would be a fine translation of that 
concept.  It doesn't *have* to bear a subordinate connotation.  

Back to archive top level