tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Feb 03 16:03:59 2007
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: sex
- From: naHQun <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: sex
- Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 18:03:07 -0600
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=ea5fzgrcnJjm/vbfWa3q+0Haut8pxN/wk085ocKKznm64IPEN4mmThqtYDY1nNLypEMEM1JHwFnKthG+ZmkbJrfThvuuR877VqY4El+kugppsDgrJaKrS2q+OnaBl2siNm62JNKOQpHXY9j67Z1izA0A8oBkKSBlKXs8yDWBD+g=
- In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
- References: <[email protected]>
On 2/3/07, Elizabeth Lawrence <[email protected]> wrote:
> I am confused about the usage of nga'chuq (perform) sex. It is listed as
> 'always subject' and, given that chuq is the plural reflexive verb suffix, I
> would assume that the verb might better be translated (they) perform sex
> on/with each other. Does this limit verb prefix use, and does this mean
> that you could write nga'egh and translate it masturbate?
>
> be''etlh
>
This is what my dictionary file has to say:
(note: my notes quote several sources, if I have misquoted, or not
noted a source; let me know)
nga'‧chuq v. sex (i.e., perform sex; always subject) [Note: it is
unclear what part of speech this may be, though it is probably a verb
and "always subject" probably refers to the concept that all involved
parties collectively make the subject of this verb.] veS QonoS
HQv1n3p9 [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.} HQ 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). 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]
--
Can that which is unsavoury be eaten without salt? or is there any
taste in the white of an egg?
Job 6:6