tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Oct 02 16:27:07 2013

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

[Tlhingan-hol] Klingon Word of the Day: maghwI'

Adm qe'San ([email protected]) [KLI Member] 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steven Boozer 
> 
> Voragh:
> >>> [KWOTD: maghwI' traitor (n)][]
> >>
> >> 'urwI'  traitor (n) [difference from {maghwI'} unknown]
> >> magh    betray, act against (S26) (v)
> >> 'ur     commit treason (v)


Another related example to throw into the mix is the noun for "treason"
{'urmang} (TKD) which appears to include {mang} "soldier" combined with
{'ur}.

> 
> De'vID:
> > Surely the difference is that a {maghwI'} is a "traitor (betrayer)",
> > whereas an {'urwI'} is a "traitor (one who commits treason)". The
> > former leaves open who or what has been betrayed, whereas the latter
> > specifies that it is a ruler, state, or other political entity
> > (someone or something the betrayal of whom or which constitutes
> treason).
> >
> > The fact that the English glosses are identical obscures this
> > difference, but it's clear in the Klingon.
> 
> That's pretty much what I imagine, though I don't like relying just on
> the English gloss for {'ur}.  We do have examples for {magh} are:
>   <numagh>
>   [They've betrayed us. (Untranslated)] ST6
> 
>   ngoQvam luchavmeH ghawran maghpu' be'nI'pu'
>   To this end, the sisters have acted against Gowron...
>   in order to gain power. S26
> 
>   wo' Damagh 'ej bIHegh
>   Die betraying the Empire. MKE
> 
> Another difference that strikes me - again based on the gloss - is that
> {"ur} "commit treason" may not take an object whereas {magh} "betray"
> does, but we'll have to wait for more examples to be certain.  Are
> there any in the {paq'batlh}?


_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol

Back to archive top level