tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Jan 26 23:17:26 2003

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

• Index by Date
• Index by Thread
• Index by Author

Re: Klingon WOTD: quv (n)

• From: Alan Anderson <[email protected]>
• Subject: Re: Klingon WOTD: quv (n)
• Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 00:23:26 -0500
• In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
• References: <[email protected]><[email protected]><[email protected]><[email protected]>

ja' Voragh:
>To test my idea that {batlh} is more inclusive, and probably subsumes,
>{quv} I'd like to ask Maltz whether the following makes any sense:
>
>   ? batlh potlh law' quv potlh puS.
>     <batlh> is more important than <quv>.
>
>or would he consider it to be utter nonsense.

I can't speak for Maltz (though he is a friend of mine, or at least vice
versa).  But as far as filmed evidence, Worf's acceptance of
discommendation for the sake of the Empire would seem to validate your
proposal.  Honor (in general) is more important than (personal) honor.

• References:
  • Re: Klingon WOTD: quv (n)
    • From: Steven Boozer <[email protected]>
  • Klingon WOTD: quv (n)
    • From: [email protected]
  • Re: Klingon WOTD: quv (n)
    • From: Steven Boozer <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: RE: *Bucs* (signature)
• Next by Date: Re: po'wI'vaD rhyme
• Prev by thread: Re: Klingon WOTD: quv (n)
• Next by thread: Special report on technological development
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

Back to archive top level