tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Nov 25 05:03:15 2009
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: Question about Klingon books (e.g., Gilgamesh et al.)
- From: "Seruq" <[email protected]>
- Subject: RE: Question about Klingon books (e.g., Gilgamesh et al.)
- Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 07:01:46 -0600
- In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
- Thread-index: Acptim1KDUP2F6itRNq5NrIVkhjgfAAQnLvA
> > 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."
leghwI' - one doing the seeing.
leghlu'wI' - was an attempt to move it from subject to object.
<qeylIS'e' lIjlaHbe'bogh vay'> Kahless the Unforgettable. This is canon.
So: leghbe'bogh vay', but this talks about the subject, no object is
mentioned.
So: Doch'e' leghbe'bogh vay', oh I hate using the word "thing"; people in
general overuse it.
It was over ten years ago. I'm sure I had my reasoning at the time.
(Right now I have to go to work. This is making me late.)
> > <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?
You went back to the "thing". I think it refers to the /action/ itself, not
the subject or object.
DloraH