tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Nov 19 11:19:06 2002

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[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",


 **        Have a question that reality just can't answer?        **
  ** Visit Project Galactic Guide **
                "That's not a bug, it's a feature!"

Back to archive top level