tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Jun 10 21:55:21 2002
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: vajHom
- From: Qov <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: vajHom
- Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 18:44:59 -0700
> >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.