[94937] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] "Containment field"
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Steven Boozer)
Thu Nov 1 16:37:18 2012
From: Steven Boozer <sboozer@uchicago.edu>
To: "tlhingan-hol@kli.org" <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2012 20:37:07 +0000
In-Reply-To: <CA+7zAmNz9+bO7xkBTWZmYxf6+ghQBXSBbTWZ+fnyfsLFs7O34A@mail.gmail.com>
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@stodi.digitalkingdom.org
Fiat Knox:
> >> Damn my memory. Has the term "containment field" turned
> >> up in canon? Skybox BoP card maybe?
Voragh:
>> Today's WOTD suggests *{weghmeH HoSchem} "confinement forcefield"
>> [...]
>> used to confine something inside it - i.e. prevent something from
>> escaping or leaving - not merely contain or have something inside.
De'vID:
> What exactly is being contained here? Is it a substance or a person
> (sentient being)? If the latter, I'd use {Sev} "contain (an enemy)"
> rather than {wegh}, e.g., {SevmeH Surchem}. I think Klingons would
> make the distinction between containing something inanimate or
> neutral vs. containing something sentient and/or potentially hostile.
I've assumed {Sev} refers to the movement of troops during combat. Okrand mentions it in KGT:
KGT 48: Common militaristic acts also have associated terminology, both verbs ({DoHmoH}, "drive back"; {Hub}, "defend"; {yot}, "invade"; {weH}, "raid} [same as {yot}, really, but with the added connotation of surprise or speed]; {HIv}, "attack, assault"; {Sev}, "contain"; {HeD}, "retreat, withdraw") and nouns ({yot}, "invasion, raid, incursion"; {Hub}, "defense").
Of course, there are no examples of {Sev} AFAIK so we don't know how it's used in Klingon. (Does it appear in the {paq'batlh}?)
--
Voragh
Ca'Non Master of the Klingons
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
Tlhingan-hol@stodi.digitalkingdom.org
http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
