[98179] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] Last X and testament?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Rohan Fenwick)
Sat Mar 15 23:44:32 2014
From: Rohan Fenwick <qeslagh@hotmail.com>
To: "tlhingan-hol@kli.org" <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2014 13:44:12 +1000
In-Reply-To: <AE01BB52-598C-4921-A152-FCBB65C09192@gmail.com>
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@kli.org
--===============8869049566031756331==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="_b10054f8-844c-4e29-8e7d-e68509776c49_"
--_b10054f8-844c-4e29-8e7d-e68509776c49_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
ghItlhpu' lojmIt tI'wI' nuv 'utlh=2C jatlh:> I really think that Klingon me=
ntality is closer to=2C =93Hmm. I really liked
> SarIS a lot before he died next to me in battle=2C but the battle=92s ove=
r
> now=2C he=92s dead=2C and those look like nice boots. I wonder if they ar=
e
> my size=85=94 I mean=2C they probably wouldn=92t fit is son=2C right?
I know it's tangential to your argument=2C but this is an instance where yo=
u're projecting Terran behaviour onto Klingon culture. It isn't just hale a=
nd hearty 20-something Klingons that are sent to be fighting soldiers=3B it=
is entirely possible that a Klingon who dies in battle has one or more adu=
lt children.
In any case=2C I've put forward a number of counterarguments=2C which I hav=
e tried to be very careful in constructing based primarily on canon:
1) We know that for Klingons=2C the actions of a living person survive thei=
r death: {qaStaHvIS wej puq =0A=
poHmey vav puqloDpu' puqloDpu'chaj je quvHa'moH vav quvHa'ghach} "the =0A=
dishonour of the father dishonours his sons and their sons for three =0A=
generations" (TKW p.155). This is explicitly supported by the (non-canon) e=
vents by which Worf and Kurn are held responsible for the alleged treason o=
f Mogh some twenty years after Mogh's death (TNG "The Sins of the Father").
2) We know that even the status of a living person survives their death:=0A=
the {bIreqtal} ritual is "the ceremony in which the killer of the =0A=
leader of a Klingon house marries the widow and thereby becomes the head=0A=
of the house itself" (KGT p.11)=2C which carries the clear implication =0A=
that the death of the House leader does not immediately terminate all =0A=
rights of his wife to continue to be recognised as a member of that =0A=
House.
3) We know that wealth and status are both matters of inheritance: =0A=
"[T]here are clear distinctions between those with great wealth and =0A=
influence and those with little or none. This sort of status is a matter=0A=
of inheritance" (KGT p.36). The passage about the {bIreqtal} also implies =
this: marriage to the widow of a deceased head of House seems to be a prer=
equisite of becoming the new head=2C indicating that the=0A=
widow serves as a sort of caretaker head for inheritance purposes and the =
observance of the {bIreqtal} is necessary to transfer those rights to the n=
ew head.
4) We know that the High Council is =0A=
capable of exercising jurisdiction over House property rights: "If the =0A=
High Council determines an action to be dishonorable=2C not only =0A=
may it remove the leader of a house from the Council itself=2C it may also=
=0A=
seize the house's lands=2C forces=2C and other holdings" (KGT p.38). This =
is further supported by the (non-canon) instance of Quark's marriage to Gri=
lka to protect her property rights until such time as she could seek interv=
ention from the High Council (DS9 "The House of Quark").
5) We know that the Klingon legal system is relatively well-developed based=
on the existence of a not insignificant lexicon of legal terminology (bo'D=
Ij=2C chut=2C DIb=2C ghIpDIj=2C Hat=2C mab=2C meqba'=2C mub=2C qI'...)=2C a=
nd we have actually seen a Klingon legal proceeding on-screen in a film for=
which Klingon dialogue was specifically created (ST6).
So to sum up: Klingons have a relatively well-developed legal system. The H=
igh Council is capable of exercising jurisdiction over House property right=
s. Presumably the High Council acts within Klingon law to exercise such jur=
isdiction. Thus=2C Klingon law probably has at least some conception of=2C =
and jurisdiction over=2C property rights. House holdings and property are a=
matter of inheritance=2C and so Klingon law probably has at least some con=
ception of=2C and jurisdiction over=2C inheritance. The actions and status =
of a living person are capable of surviving their death=2C at least for som=
e purposes. Presumably lawful and honourable orders given by a living perso=
n=2C which are actions by definition=2C also survive death. Thus=2C a livin=
g person should be capable of giving lawful and honourable orders - includi=
ng with regard to the distribution of their property - that remain valid af=
ter the person themselves has died.
Again=2C it isn't a corpse that gives the orders. It's a body in whom a {qa=
'} dwells=2C and in Klingon conception the {qa'} survives the death of its =
{porgh}. If a {qa'} has given orders=2C the death of the {porgh} which the =
{qa'} inhabits should have no bearing on the validity of the orders of the =
{qa'}.
taH:
> We are Klingons=2C not Ferengi. Accumulating wealth and passing it on
> to generations based upon birth and not merit is not an honorable
> path.
To this I have two counterarguments:
1) Even if you are right=2C why does inheritance necessarily need to be abo=
ut birth? Why can't it be about merit=2C even in a system whereby wills exi=
st? If I were a Klingon ship's captain=2C why can't I choose to record a wi=
ll leaving my entire estate to my long-serving second-in-command who has se=
rved me intelligently and honourably?
2) You say that it is not honourable to pass wealth on to generations based=
upon birth and not merit=2C yet the whole House system=2C and everything w=
e know about it=2C runs counter to your argument. Klingon society is heavil=
y stratified (KGT p.36)=2C and such stratification normally arises only in =
societies with social institutions for perpetuating inequality of wealth. A=
lthough we don't know the Klingon term for it (and indeed Klingons may simp=
ly refer to it with a phrase rather than a special lexeme)=2C I contend tha=
t one of those institutions in Klingon society may well be something with e=
nough similarity to a will that we would recognise it as such=2C especially=
given that (as I argue above) what we know about Klingon law implies at le=
ast a certain degree of legal codification of property rights and consequen=
tly of rights to inherit such property.
taH:
> This is not our culture. Language and culture are of the same root.
Absolutely agreed=2C but for the very reason that it *isn't* our culture=2C=
we need to be able to base our arguments on something rather than just mak=
e assertions. That's what I've tried to do here: to show=2C based on cultur=
al and linguistic evidence=2C Klingons probably have legally enshrined prot=
ections for inheritance matters and one of those protections may involve so=
mething akin to what we call a will.
In any event=2C it still wasn't my initial intention to argue Klingons have=
such things as wills - only to ask how a Klingon might describe the Terran=
concept - but never mind=3B spirited exchange can lead to unexpected place=
s. :)
QeS
=
--_b10054f8-844c-4e29-8e7d-e68509776c49_
Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<html>
<head>
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px=3B
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 12pt=3B
font-family:Calibri
}
--></style></head>
<body class=3D'hmmessage'><div dir=3D'ltr'>ghItlhpu' lojmIt tI'wI' nuv 'utl=
h=2C jatlh:<div><div>>=3B I really think that Klingon mentality is closer=
to=2C =93Hmm. I really liked<br>>=3B SarIS a lot before he died next to =
me in battle=2C but the battle=92s over<br>>=3B now=2C he=92s dead=2C and=
those look like nice boots. I wonder if they are<br>>=3B my size=85=94 I=
mean=2C they probably wouldn=92t fit is son=2C right?<br><br>I know it's t=
angential to your argument=2C but this is an instance where you're projecti=
ng Terran behaviour onto Klingon culture. It isn't just hale and hearty 20-=
something Klingons that are sent to be fighting soldiers=3B it is entirely =
possible that a Klingon who dies in battle has one or more adult children.<=
br></div><div><br></div><div>In any case=2C I've put forward a number of co=
unterarguments=2C which I have tried to be very careful in constructing bas=
ed primarily on canon:<br><br>1) We know that for Klingons=2C the actions o=
f a living person survive their death: {qaStaHvIS wej puq =0A=
poHmey vav puqloDpu' puqloDpu'chaj je quvHa'moH vav quvHa'ghach} "the =0A=
dishonour of the father dishonours his sons and their sons for three =0A=
generations" (TKW p.155). This is explicitly supported by the (non-canon) e=
vents by which Worf and Kurn are held responsible for the alleged treason o=
f Mogh some twenty years after Mogh's death (TNG "The Sins of the Father").=
<br><br>2) We know that even the status of a living person survives their d=
eath:=0A=
the {bIreqtal} ritual is "the ceremony in which the killer of the =0A=
leader of a Klingon house marries the widow and thereby becomes the head=0A=
of the house itself" (KGT p.11)=2C which carries the clear implication =0A=
that the death of the House leader does not immediately terminate all =0A=
rights of his wife to continue to be recognised as a member of that =0A=
House.<br><br>3) We know that wealth and status are both matters of inherit=
ance: =0A=
"[T]here are clear distinctions between those with great wealth and =0A=
influence and those with little or none. This sort of status is a matter=0A=
of inheritance" (KGT p.36). The passage about the {bIreqtal} also implies =
this: marriage to the widow of a deceased head of House seems to be a prer=
equisite of becoming the new head=2C indicating that the=0A=
widow serves as a sort of caretaker head for inheritance purposes and the =
observance of the {bIreqtal} is necessary to transfer those rights to the n=
ew head.<br><br>4) We know that the High Council is =0A=
capable of exercising jurisdiction over House property rights: "If the =0A=
High Council determines an action to be dishonorable=2C not only =0A=
may it remove the leader of a house from the Council itself=2C it may also=
=0A=
seize the house's lands=2C forces=2C and other holdings" (KGT p.38). This =
is further supported by the (non-canon) instance of Quark's marriage to Gri=
lka to protect her property rights until such time as she could seek interv=
ention from the High Council (DS9 "The House of Quark").<br><br>5) We know =
that the Klingon legal system is relatively well-developed based on the exi=
stence of a not insignificant lexicon of legal terminology (bo'DIj=2C chut=
=2C DIb=2C ghIpDIj=2C Hat=2C mab=2C meqba'=2C mub=2C qI'...)=2C and we have=
actually seen a Klingon legal proceeding on-screen in a film for which Kli=
ngon dialogue was specifically created (ST6).<br><br>So to sum up: Klingons=
have a relatively well-developed legal system. The High Council is capable=
of exercising jurisdiction over House property rights. Presumably the High=
Council acts within Klingon law to exercise such jurisdiction. Thus=2C Kli=
ngon law probably has at least some conception of=2C and jurisdiction over=
=2C property rights. House holdings and property are a matter of inheritanc=
e=2C and so Klingon law probably has at least some conception of=2C and jur=
isdiction over=2C inheritance. The actions and status of a living person ar=
e capable of surviving their death=2C at least for some purposes. Presumabl=
y lawful and honourable orders given by a living person=2C which are action=
s by definition=2C also survive death. Thus=2C a living person should be ca=
pable of giving lawful and honourable orders - including with regard to the=
distribution of their property - that remain valid after the person themse=
lves has died.<br><br>Again=2C it isn't a corpse that gives the orders. It'=
s a body in whom a {qa'} dwells=2C and in Klingon conception the {qa'} surv=
ives the death of its {porgh}. If a {qa'} has given orders=2C the death of =
the {porgh} which the {qa'} inhabits should have no bearing on the validity=
of the orders of the {qa'}.<br><br>taH:<br><br>>=3B We are Klingons=2C n=
ot Ferengi. Accumulating wealth and passing it on<br>>=3B to generations =
based upon birth and not merit is not an honorable<br>>=3B path.<br><br>T=
o this I have two counterarguments:<br><br>1) Even if you are right=2C why =
does inheritance necessarily need to be about birth? Why can't it be about =
merit=2C even in a system whereby wills exist? If I were a Klingon ship's c=
aptain=2C why can't I choose to record a will leaving my entire estate to m=
y long-serving second-in-command who has served me intelligently and honour=
ably?<br><br>2) You say that it is not honourable to pass wealth on to gene=
rations based upon birth and not merit=2C yet the whole House system=2C and=
everything we know about it=2C runs counter to your argument. Klingon soci=
ety is heavily stratified (KGT p.36)=2C and such stratification normally ar=
ises only in societies with social institutions for perpetuating inequality=
of wealth. Although we don't know the Klingon term for it (and indeed Klin=
gons may simply refer to it with a phrase rather than a special lexeme)=2C =
I contend that one of those institutions in Klingon society may well be som=
ething with enough similarity to a will that we would recognise it as such=
=2C especially given that (as I argue above) what we know about Klingon law=
implies at least a certain degree of legal codification of property rights=
and consequently of rights to inherit such property.<br><br>taH:<br>>=3B=
This is not our culture. Language and culture are of the same root.<br><br=
>Absolutely agreed=2C but for the very reason that it *isn't* our culture=
=2C we need to be able to base our arguments on something rather than just =
make assertions. That's what I've tried to do here: to show=2C based on cul=
tural and linguistic evidence=2C Klingons probably have legally enshrined p=
rotections for inheritance matters and one of those protections may involve=
something akin to what we call a will.<br><br>In any event=2C it still was=
n't my initial intention to argue Klingons have such things as wills - only=
to ask how a Klingon might describe the Terran concept - but never mind=3B=
spirited exchange can lead to unexpected places. :)<br><br>QeS<br></div></=
div> </div></body>
</html>=
--_b10054f8-844c-4e29-8e7d-e68509776c49_--
--===============8869049566031756331==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
Tlhingan-hol@kli.org
http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
--===============8869049566031756331==--
