tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Sep 06 02:57:04 2013

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

Re: [Tlhingan-hol] do {vIttlhegh} become {ngo'} or {qan}?

Rohan Fenwick (qeslagh@hotmail.com) [KLI Member]



<html>
<head>
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 12pt;
font-family:Calibri
}
--></style></head>
<body class='hmmessage'><div dir='ltr'>ghItlhpu' De'vID, jatlh:<br>&gt; When I saw {vIttlhegh ngo'}, I instinctively thought it should've been<br><div>&gt; {vIttlhegh qan}:<br>&gt; https://twitter.com/ghunwI/status/375061262540890113<br>&gt; <br>&gt; But is my instinct correct? Which would you use?<br><br>For my part I would find {vIttlhegh qan} weird in any circumstances. {vIttlhegh ngo'} is really the only alternative for me.<br><br>In the other direction, though, I had an Ubykh proverb in my signature for a long time, of which the English translation was "Old roads and old friends will never deceive you". The problem is that English "old friend" in this circumstance doesn't really mean {jup qan}. Can one, therefore, talk about a {jup ngo'} - an old friend, one that one has known for a long time - as opposed to a {jup qan}, merely a friend who happens to be old?<br><br>I don't expect an answer, of course - this is a mere rhetorical consideration.<br><br>&gt; I think my intuition is coloured by the Chinese correspondents<br>&gt; (Chinese makes the same distinction between not-new-old and<br>&gt; not-young-old as Klingon):<br>&gt; <br>&gt; ngo' - v. be old (not new) -- 舊 (not 新)<br>&gt; qan - v. be old (not young) -- 老 (not 青)<br>&gt; <br>&gt; In Chinese, a time-worn proverb is described as old with age (老), not<br>&gt; old due to lack or fading of novelty (which is what 舊 would imply).<br>&gt; But the Klingon "old" pair may not work in exactly the same way as the<br>&gt; Chinese.<br><br>Precisely. Using Chinese to guide understanding of Klingon is not fruitful. You're best off going to canon examples.<br><br>&gt; Indeed, we know young Klingons don't describe new language as<br>&gt; {chu'} or {Qup}, but as {ghoQ}.<br><br>In that instance there's also a difference of register that you need to consider as well. Is it really true that young Klingons don't *ever* describe new language as {chu'} or {Qup}? If they were speaking to someone from an older generation, say, would they necessarily still use the term {mu'mey ghoQ} for such a thing? Would they dare refer to the older person's slang as {Doy'} in front of their faces? I don't think so.<br><br>QeS<br></div> 		 	   		  </div></body>
</html>
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
Tlhingan-hol@kli.org
http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol


Back to archive top level