[3680] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: Qaghqoq
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU)
Tue Mar 8 15:38:19 1994
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@klingon.East.Sun.COM
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@klingon.East.Sun.COM
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@klingon.East.Sun.COM
Reply-To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@klingon.East.Sun.COM>
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@klingon.East.Sun.COM
From: Amy_West@p1.f252.n202.z1.fidonet.org
To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@klingon.East.Sun.COM>
Date: Mon, 7 Mar 94 15:04:20 -0800
Comment-To: UUCP@p1.f252.n202.z1.fidonet.org
Reply-To: Amy_West@p1.f252.n202.z1.fidonet.org
On Mon 7 Mar 94 08:42, Will Martin writes:
> Interesting point. More accurately, I think it is a point
> unaddressed in TKD. If a family is not capable of using language,
> though its members are capable of using language because the group
is a
> different kind of noun than an individual, then any other group of
> jatlhwI'pu' would similarly not receive the jalthwI' possessive
> suffixes. Hmm. Then it would seem that "my brothers" should be
> "loDnI'pu'wIj", which sounds pretty derrogatory to me. It is also
weird
> because one suffix says they can speak while the other says they
can't.
> Then again, "loDnI'mey" is not derrogatory. It just means that
> the brothers are scattered all over the place. Meanwhile "loDnI'wIj"
IS
> derrogatory. I'd hedge my bets and say {qorDu'wI'}. Families are
> easily disturbed by misunderstandings, and I prefer to err toward
> excessive respect.
> charghwI'
I also had to ponder this when translating "my family" and I chose to
use {qorDu'wI'}. Although you're right about there not being
anything about this in TKD, I feel that in this case, what's true of
the part is also true of the whole. Showing respect for the "family"
would be the Klingon thing to do.
Amy
