[94896] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] Klingon Word of the Day: waQ
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Gaerfindel)
Thu Oct 25 13:07:27 2012
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 13:07:01 -0400
From: Gaerfindel <gaerfindel@hotmail.com>
To: tlhingan-hol@stodi.digitalkingdom.org
In-Reply-To: <ACF6622D959A8842A81E4471BA56A7E001F0298B@xm-mbx-04-prod.ad.uchicago.edu>
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@stodi.digitalkingdom.org
On 10/25/2012 12:10 PM, Steven Boozer wrote:
> quljIb:
>> {tlhIngon Hol vIyaj 'e' DawaQ.} "You obstruct my understanding of
>> Klingon." (lit. "You obstruct that I understand Klingon language.")
>>
>> Is this a valid use of the word? Or is {waQ} meant to be used in a
>> more literal way? Example: {lojmIt waQ.} "It obstructs the door."
> AFAIK there are no examples of this verb used in canon. (Are there any in the paq'batlh?)
>
> For comparison we have the similar verb {bot} "prevent, block" which has been used:
> This raises the question: What's the difference between {waQ} "obstruct" and {bot} "prevent, block, etc."?
matlh wItlhobnIS.
My best guess--and really that's all it is--would be that {waQ} is used
when there is an inanimate obstruction {lojmIt waQ Sor HoHpu'}, while
{bot} is used when there is an animate object *actively* involved
{lojmIt bot mIl'oD}.
> We have a possible antonym {Huv} "be clear, not obstructed" which AFAIK has also not appeared in canon. (Someone - was it Sustel? - once translated John Ford's "naked stars" as *{Hovmey Huv} which I works very nicely.) And there's also {poS} "be open/opened" vs. {SoQ} "be closed/shut" and {ngaQ} "be locked, be sealed, be secured, be fastened".
>
> All of which doesn't answer quljIb's question. My own rule-of-thumb WRT ambiguous verbs unattested in canon is to assume the literal/physical meaning over a metaphorical one until we have further examples or clues from Okrand.
A wise choice.
~quljIb
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
Tlhingan-hol@stodi.digitalkingdom.org
http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
