tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Nov 25 05:03:15 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.)

Seruq (

> > 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
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.


Back to archive top level