tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Jun 26 18:37:18 2011

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: chomuSHa''a'? ghorgh chomuS!? - Question about muSHa'

Robyn Stewart ([email protected]) [KLI Member] [Hol po'wI']

yIvbeHvetlh wIpoQ. pIqaD lo' 'e' vImaS. mu'mey DIwIvnIS.

tlhIngan Hol vIlo'Ha' 'e' maq Marc Okrand jay'

wIDubmoHlaHbej.

At 12:59 26/06/2011, you wrote:
>This is the real challenge to dealing with a 
>FICTIONAL artificial language. It's not a code 
>for English. It's a language. But there are no 
>native speakers. And there are some concepts 
>that are alien enough that they don't translate 
>well. People who use the language evolve an 
>understanding over time for the way certain 
>things feel, but if Okrand subsequently 
>interprets things differently, suddenly, that 
>feeling is not altogether valid. This can be 
>pretty hard to take. Been there. Done that. 
>Nobody made a T-shirt, so I have nothing to show for it.
>
>It's clear that {-Ha'} is not fully explained by 
>Okrand, but it is in common-enough use that we 
>all get comfortable using it in most settings, 
>but then there are other contexts where it is 
>not so clear and some of us will make one 
>interpretation while others make a different 
>one, and none of us except Okrand (who probably 
>doesn't care all that much in an average day) can say for sure who is right.
>
>Welcome to tlhIngan Hol. The Land of 
>Irreconcilable Arguments. It's a good thing it's 
>a warrior's tongue. We fight over it often enough...
>
>lojmIt tI'wI' nuv
>[email protected]
>
>
>
>On Jun 26, 2011, at 2:04 PM, Felix Malmenbeck wrote:
>
> >> lo'vam Daparchugh, yIlo'Qo'. lo'vam Dayajchugh, yIbepQo'.
> >
> > jIbepbe' neH. lo'vam vIparchu'be' 'ach Daj 
> 'e' vIQub. tlhIngan Hol SovwIj vIDubmeH latlh vuDmey vIlaD vIneH.
> >
> >> I like to think that {-Ha'} means only one 
> thing, but no single English word
> >> translates it. We stretch the idea in one direction or the other by
> >> translating it either as "undo" or as 
> "wrongly", where it really ought to be
> >> more like both at the same time.
> >
> > I'm tempted to agree with you on this. When a 
> verb describes a state that lies on a 
> continuum, I often interpret the -Ha' as 
> implying that one is somehow on both halves of 
> the spectrum. For example, somebody who thinks 
> one is happy but is dead inside could perhaps 
> be described as QuchHa', and somebody who is 
> sad for no reason may be 'IQHa'. That being 
> said, examples like parHa' seem to go against 
> this interpretation...  ...at least if one 
> assumes that Klingons use the words par and 
> parHa' the same way we use the words "dislike" 
> and "like", which, of course, is far from certain.
> >
> >> {muSHa'} definitely doesn't always mean the 
> same thing as "love", but I can
> >> imagine a situation where both words can be appropriate expressions of the
> >> same concept.
> >
> > Agreed; I think something like this seems to 
> show up both in the works of Shakespeare 
> (Sonnet 147, for instance) and Hugh Grant 
> (Generic Hugh Grant Movie #47, for instance), 
> where a person finds another not so much in 
> spite of as because of the fact that he/she is 
> completely despicable to him/her.
> > I've actually used the word "hatkärlek" 
> ("hate-love"; comparable to the English word 
> "love-hate", but in my experience used slightly 
> differently) to describe tasks which I've found 
> refreshingly infuriating; this could perhaps be 
> seen as one form of muSHa'ghach.
> >
> > Moby-Dick muSHa''a' Ahab HoD.
> >
> >

Back to archive top level