tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Nov 19 11:19:06 2002
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Klingon WOTD: wagh (v)
On Tue, 19 Nov 2002, Steven Boozer wrote:
> Cf. also {lo'laH} "be valuable". For {qutlh} "be cheap", cf. also
> {lo'laHbe'} "be worthless".
Am I correct in thinking there are distinct connotational difference
between { lo'laH } and { wagh } (and similarly for { lo'laHbe' } and {
qutlh }? ie. something could be both valuable and cheap, while something
could also be expensive and worthless...
For example, a gold-plated No. 2 pencil (okay, I'm reaching, looking
around the office for examples) might be expensive, but it's also pretty
much useless. { lo'laHbe' 'ach wagh } A pocketknife may be cheap, but
very useful. { lo'laH 'ach qutlh }
Keep in mind, the root { lo' } means "use". { lo'laH } means valuable in
terms of "useful", { lo'laHbe' } means worthless in terms of "unusable",
no?
...Paul
** Have a question that reality just can't answer? **
** Visit Project Galactic Guide http://www.galactic-guide.com/ **
"That's not a bug, it's a feature!"