[2475] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: butlhDu' butlhmey ghap
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU)
Fri Jan 7 13:39:47 1994
Reply-To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@klingon.East.Sun.COM>
From: Will Martin <whm2m@uva.pcmail.virginia.edu>
To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@klingon.East.Sun.COM>
Date: Fri, 7 Jan 94 13:36:06 EST
On Jan 6, 11:39pm, DSTRADER@delphi.com wrote:
> Subject: Re: butlhDu' butlhmey ghap
>
> I know you called your question rhetorical, but I have something to say
> about it. It reminds me of that nightmarish experience after I posted
> the question about {porghpu' porghDu' joq porghmey joq}. If memory serves,
> Krankor got so ticked off due to all the pointless rambling discussion
> this generated in the course of only about one day, that he refused to
> post in English for a month!
I remember. I do not seek that sort of controversy over something as
trivial as butlh, though I'll confess that I learned a lot more from Krankor
in less time when he posted only in Klingon. I still think he writes with
more consistent clarity than any other Klingon I've had the pleasure to read.
> Anyways, {butlh} is one of those words like {lam} or {Soj} because it has
> no real practical usage for a plural suffix.
Agreed.
> ...How do Klingons feel about {butlhchaj}?
> Guido#1, Leader of All Guidos
My suspicion is that it can either be used as an analog for trivial
things. {jIHvaD butlh potlh law' SoH potlh puS} I also suspect that it can be
considered an insult to lack butlh. It would be a symptom of a desk job; a
white collar Klingon; one too lazy or delicate for manual labor.
butlh ghajbe' qoHvetlh
-- charghwI'
