[88521] in tlhIngan-Hol
RE: QISmaS
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Steven Boozer)
Mon Dec 27 14:04:53 2010
From: Steven Boozer <sboozer@uchicago.edu>
To: "tlhingan-hol@kli.org" <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2010 08:33:32 -0600
In-Reply-To: <F52986192E9FE346B0B7EF3D6F98E87710A6D5F9@EXDB3.ug.kth.se>
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Felix Malmenbeck:
> Used Qun instead of Qun'a', here. On the one hand, one can seldom go
> wrong with using augmentative suffixes or epithets to describe one's
> deity, but I'm thinking that an -'a' here might imply that there is
> more than one god, which is kind of a big no-no in biblical contexts.
Exactly right. Okrand revealed {Qun} on startrek.klingon (7/19/99):
"There is a Klingon word that could be translated god or supernatural being: {Qun}. In talking of times long ago (pre-Kahless?), Klingons mention these beings, and there seem to have been a good number of them (the plural of {Qun} is {Qunpu'} since they are or were presumably capable of using language, which is what the plural suffix {-pu'} implies). Though too little is known of ancient Klingon theology, there doesn't seem to have been a single {Qun} that stood out from the rest. Indeed, the {Qunpu'} appear to have acted collectively. {Qunpu'} are distinct from {qa'pu'} 'spirits' (such as the spirits of the dishonored dead which reside at Gre'thor). {Qun'a'} 'great god' ({Qun} plus {-'a'}, the augmentative suffix) may or may not be an appropriate translation for a single supernatural being in a monotheistic system, since the {Qun'a'} would still be one among many."
If I read this right, Zeus would be the {Qun'a'} of the entire Olympic pantheon {Qunpu'} for example.
Before {Qun}, people on the mailing list and in fandom tended to use *{joH'a'} or *{qa''a'} where the use of {-'a'} was appropriate as {joH} "lord/lady" and {qa'} "spirit" are words in their own right.
