tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Jun 13 13:53:09 2003
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC chepqu' ne' QonoS
>>ghItlh Voragh:
>> >{taghwI'} is a "beginner, someone/something that begins"; if anything,
>> >something that starts something else should be *{taghmoHwI'} <g>.
>>
>>That sounds like someone who makes you start, but not "start an engine".
>>
>> >already have {chu'wI'} "trigger", derived from {chu'} "engage, activate,
>> >turn on (a device)" from PK:
Quvar:
>>I agree, {chu'wI'} is a better word for this.
>>
>>But the verb {tagh} can be both transitive and intransitive; i.e. you can
>>"begin" and you can "begin
>>a process":
>>
>>PK:
>> {taghbej mu'qaD veS}
>> "Curse-warfare has definitely begun"
>>
>>TKW:
>> {Qu' DataghDI' 'aqtu' mellota' je yIqaw}
>> "When you begin a mission, remember Aktuh and Melota."
SuStel:
>I disagree that /chu'wI'/ is necessarily better. It depends on your
>meaning. If you're someone who's starting a mission, you're a /taghwI'/
>"one who starts," not a /chu'wI'/ "one who activates." You don't activate
>a mission.
>
>Further, both /taghwI'/ and /taghmoHwI'/ are theoretically valid words,
>given the known uses of /tagh/.
WRT starting cars or engines, there's another word we're overlooking:
{rIHwI'} "energizer" which has something to do with impulse engines. In
ST2 while still inside the Terran system, Kirk ordered "Energizers off!"
and the Enterprise came to an apparent halt; he then ordered the warp drive
engaged and the ship jumped to warp. (Note that {rIH} "energize" is
different from {laQ} "fire, energize [e.g. thrusters]".)
--
Voragh
Ca'Non Master of the Klingons