tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Apr 20 21:13:42 2006
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: qep'a' (was Re: On a more humerous note)
- From: Shane MiQogh <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: qep'a' (was Re: On a more humerous note)
- Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 21:13:29 -0700 (PDT)
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=SGEfe0Pn8ktGfT+aM/mMAt7uPPk0buw19RxmcAZ06CXnK1RWDvpGL7s/PNwFwULUAYlZ8X3rGNWQWh1SXKTi9kKSZBjvPTgT/hw+mVDegIGAOyS9OrB4SaEzkdaOaOEpVeNKgdFvMArrBA86Gg2sU5ShPQN8YjMr2tuiqLqaXLM= ;
- In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
QeS 'utlh <[email protected]> wrote: ghItlhpu' Shane MiQogh, ja':
>A source i failed to check said that "nga'chuq" ment "sex".
HolQeD 1:3 is the source of the word. It's doubtful you have that issue.
{{:) {nga'chuq} is listed on the KLI's New Words List. You really should
print that list out; there are a stack of useful words on it.
>I should recheck the source. lol
What follows is opinion, so you don't *have* to follow it, but I believe
this is the most sensible interpretation of {nga'chuq}.
I think that {nga'chuq} "to have sex" is actually composed of two parts: the
type 1 verb suffix {-chuq} and an otherwise unattested verbal root *{nga'}
"to have sex with, to mate with", which is related to the verb {ngagh} "to
mate with" (found in TKD). So {nga'chuq} literally means "(they) have sex
with each other". (If this is in fact the case, you must use a no-object
verbal prefix on the verb: {manga'chuq} "we have sex (with each other)",
{Sunga'chuq} "you have sex (with each other)". Klingon grammar forbids the
formation {munga'chuq}.) HolQeD 1:3 glosses {nga'chuq} as "sex (i.e.,
perform sex; always subject)"; to me, this says that all parties having sex
would collectively be the subject of this verb, which would be logical if
{nga'chuq} were, in fact, *{nga'} + {-chuq}.
Now, to me, {nga'chuq} implies consent, a mutual (if you'll excuse the pun)
conjugation that both parties are actively engaging with (as evidenced by
the suffix {-chuq} "(do to) each other"). However, I understand {ngagh},
TKD's verb for "to mate with", as implying agency on the part of only one
person (the mater, not the one mated with). Thus {mungagh} "he/she/it mates
with me" would be more appropriate for the sense you intended, since you
would not be the one who is actively engaging in the act.
I suspect that {ngagh} and *{nga'-} used to be the same verb (which one was
the original form is, of course, up for debate), and that {nga'chuq} is
nothing more than an irregularity in the conjugation of the verb {ngagh}.
QeS 'utlh
tlhIngan Hol yejHaD pabpo' / Grammarian of the Klingon Language Institute
not nItoj Hemey ngo' juppu' ngo' je
(Old roads and old friends will never deceive you)
- Ubykh Hol vIttlhegh
_________________________________________________________________
New year, new job ? there's more than 100,00 jobs at SEEK
http://a.ninemsn.com.au/b.aspx?URL=http%3A%2F%2Fninemsn%2Eseek%2Ecom%2Eau&_t=752315885&_r=Jan05_tagline&_m=EXT
I still don't understand why mu- would be wrong... The subject would be they/them and i would be the object. So i don't understand why mu- would be wrong...
---------------------------------
New Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Call regular phones from your PC and save big.