tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Oct 18 09:25:28 2003

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

RE: {-be'} and {be'}

DloraH ([email protected])

• From: "DloraH" <[email protected]>
• Subject: RE: {-be'} and {be'}
• Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2003 10:25:33 -0400
• Importance: Normal
• In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>

> I am in communication with a woman who believes that Klingon is,
> by nature, sexist. I've managed to shoot down most of her
> arguments, but she still has one crutch: That the suffix of
> negation ({-be'}) and the noun for "female" ({be'}) are
> identical. She believes that this indicates that Okrand is
> secretly a misogynist, and that's why he chose those syllables.
> Before breaking off communications with her, I would like to put
> this to rest. Has anyone ever asked Okrand this question, and if
> so, does anyone know what his answer was?

I'm sure you've already mentioned the genderless prefixes and pronouns.
But if they insist that -be'/be' is enough fuel to label klingon as sexist,
then my reply is:  So maybe it is sexist; so what!  The bible is sexist too.
And, hey, so is all of nature.  Males and females ARE different, and there's
nothing anybody can do about it.
Even tho -be' is for negation, it is not "bad".  Qochbe' means "agree".
Etc.
Can anyone point to a society in all of history that is truely 100%
non-sexist?


DloraH

• References:
  • {-be'} and {be'}
    • From: "Scott Willis" <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: {-be'} and {be'}
• Next by Date: Re: Daddy Daycare
• Prev by thread: {-be'} and {be'}
• Next by thread: RE: {-be'} and {be'}
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

Back to archive top level