[88893] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: chomuSHa''a'? ghorgh chomuS!? - Question about muSHa'
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (ghunchu'wI' 'utlh)
Tue Jun 21 10:11:45 2011
In-Reply-To: <F52986192E9FE346B0B7EF3D6F98E87711BD66C9@EXDB3.ug.kth.se>
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2011 10:04:18 -0400
From: "ghunchu'wI' 'utlh" <qunchuy@alcaco.net>
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 5:42 PM, Felix Malmenbeck <felixm@kth.se> wrote:
> I fairly often see the word muSHa' being used as a way of saying "love",
> supposedly due to the logic that because muS is stronger than par, muSHa'
> should be stronger than parHa'.
> I personally do not much agree with this logic; -Ha' is used to signify
> that something previously done has become undone (and one must not first
> hate somebody in order to love them), or that something is done wrongly (and
> while I cannot be certain, I'd be surprised if Klingons equated loving with
> hating incorrectly); it's not a polar opposite marker.
>
lo'vam Daparchugh, yIlo'Qo'. lo'vam Dayajchugh, yIbepQo'.
I like to think that {-Ha'} means only one thing, but no single English word
translates it. We stretch the idea in one direction or the other by
translating it either as "undo" or as "wrongly", where it really ought to be
more like both at the same time. I also don't have a problem interpreting it
as a simple "opposite" in the right context.
{muSHa'} definitely doesn't always mean the same thing as "love", but I can
imagine a situation where both words can be appropriate expressions of the
same concept.
-- ghunchu'wI'
