tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Nov 24 20:47:26 2009

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: Question about Klingon books (e.g., Gilgamesh et al.)

Christopher Doty (

> N-wI' is not always a person.  It can be a thing.

I know, but N-wI' does mean "the thing/person doing the seeing" and
not "the thing which is seen."  One is a noun about the subject, and
one is a noun about the object.  That is what I am getting at, not
anything about people or things.

>> Ought it not be <leghbe'lu'ghach> or <leghbe'lu'bogh wanI'>?
>> Or is the passive/inverse meaning of -lu' take to its extreme here?
> <leghbe'lu'ghach> is a noun referring to the action of not-being-seen.

Right, the thing which is not seen: the unseen.  Is there some shade
of meaning I'm missing here?

> <leghbe'lu'bogh wanI'> refers to an event, an occurance.
> Seeing this I do ask myself about putting -wI' on a -lu'.  Can we do this?
> I know... It is really really old tlhIngan Hol; no' Hol.

So it's fair to say that it is a bit odd, if understandable, and I'm
not totally off-base in wondering about it?


Back to archive top level