[110608] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [tlhIngan Hol] Klingon Word of the Day: cheH
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (mayqel qunenoS)
Mon Aug 14 15:15:53 2017
X-Original-To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org
In-Reply-To: <635c175f-c227-cb3e-2f08-0c519dc284b8@gmx.de>
From: mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2017 22:15:50 +0300
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Reply-To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org
--===============9177024657663903309==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c18a7aeab3dc00556bb7d20"
--94eb2c18a7aeab3dc00556bb7d20
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
lieven:
> Anyway, I would stick to the first definition magh = "betray
I agree. I think, that it would be very difficult/close to impossible for
someone reading {magh} to actually think "work against", instead {betray}.
Sticking to the strictest interpretation of canon, is the only way to
assure, that while using the language, we are able to actually understand
each other.
qunnoq
On 14 Aug 2017 10:08 pm, "Lieven" <levinius@gmx.de> wrote:
> Am 14.08.2017 um 20:58 schrieb mayqel qunenoS:
>
>> So, with regards to the "act against" translation of {magh}, we can't be
>> certain that it's 100% 'oqranD-approved, right ?
>>
>
> If you take it very exact, than yes.
>
> It seems obvious that the English was there first. When okrand had to
> tanslate it, he searched for a suitable word. Since there was no word
> meaning "act against", he probably thought like "that's quite the same as
> betraying someone", so he picked that word instead. It didn't really change
> the meaning of the phrase.
>
> It's like many people like to use the word {targh} for "dog". It's not
> correct, but conveys the idea.
>
> Anyway, I would stick to the first definition magh = "betray" and regard
> the other translation as a clue on how one could use the word. After all,
> working against somebody that you are supposed to help is betraying. But
> {magh} is not work against /anyone/.
>
>
> --
> Lieven L. Litaer
> aka Quvar valer 'utlh
> Grammarian of the KLI
> http://www.facebook.com/Klingonteacher
> http://www.klingonwiki.net
> _______________________________________________
> tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
> tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org
> http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
>
--94eb2c18a7aeab3dc00556bb7d20
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"auto">lieven:<div dir=3D"auto">>=C2=A0<span style=3D"font-fa=
mily:sans-serif;font-size:13.696px">Anyway, I would stick to the first defi=
nition magh =3D "betray</span></div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div d=
ir=3D"auto">I agree. I think, that it would be very difficult/close to impo=
ssible for someone reading {magh} to actually think "work against"=
;, instead {betray}.</div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">Sti=
cking to the strictest interpretation of canon, is the only way to assure, =
that while using the language, we are able to actually understand each othe=
r.</div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">qunnoq</div><div dir=
=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div=
><div dir=3D"auto"><span style=3D"font-family:sans-serif;font-size:13.696px=
"><br></span></div><div dir=3D"auto"><span style=3D"font-family:sans-serif;=
font-size:13.696px"><br></span></div><div dir=3D"auto"><span style=3D"font-=
family:sans-serif;font-size:13.696px"><br></span></div></div><div class=3D"=
gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On 14 Aug 2017 10:08 pm, "=
Lieven" <<a href=3D"mailto:levinius@gmx.de">levinius@gmx.de</a>>=
wrote:<br type=3D"attribution"><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"=
margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Am 14.08.201=
7 um 20:58 schrieb mayqel qunenoS:<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
So, with regards to the "act against" translation of {magh}, we c=
an't be certain that it's 100% 'oqranD-approved, right ?<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
If you take it very exact, than yes.<br>
<br>
It seems obvious that the English was there first. When okrand had to tansl=
ate it, he searched for a suitable word. Since there was no word meaning &q=
uot;act against", he probably thought like "that's quite the =
same as betraying someone", so he picked that word instead. It didn=
9;t really change the meaning of the phrase.<br>
<br>
It's like many people like to use the word {targh} for "dog".=
It's not correct, but conveys the idea.<br>
<br>
Anyway, I would stick to the first definition magh =3D "betray" a=
nd regard the other translation as a clue on how one could use the word. Af=
ter all, working against somebody that you are supposed to help is betrayin=
g. But {magh} is not work against /anyone/.<br>
<br>
<br>
-- <br>
Lieven L. Litaer<br>
aka Quvar valer 'utlh<br>
Grammarian of the KLI<br>
<a href=3D"http://www.facebook.com/Klingonteacher" rel=3D"noreferrer" targe=
t=3D"_blank">http://www.facebook.com/Klingo<wbr>nteacher</a><br>
<a href=3D"http://www.klingonwiki.net" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank"=
>http://www.klingonwiki.net</a><br>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
tlhIngan-Hol mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org" target=3D"_blank">tlhIngan-Ho=
l@lists.kli.org</a><br>
<a href=3D"http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org" rel=3D"n=
oreferrer" target=3D"_blank">http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.<wbr>cgi/tlhinga=
n-hol-kli.org</a><br>
</blockquote></div></div>
--94eb2c18a7aeab3dc00556bb7d20--
--===============9177024657663903309==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
_______________________________________________
tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org
http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
--===============9177024657663903309==--
