[97321] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] Klingon Word of the Day: maghwI'
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Steven Boozer)
Wed Oct 2 09:15:45 2013
From: Steven Boozer <sboozer@uchicago.edu>
To: "tlhingan-hol@kli.org" <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2013 13:15:18 +0000
In-Reply-To: <CA+7zAmOEY8CYbWfszKqnmCEk-fM1CgCJ+SN3NvFJpOqc1F39Vw@mail.gmail.com>
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@kli.org
Voragh:
>>> [KWOTD: maghwI' traitor (n)][]
>>
>> 'urwI' traitor (n) [difference from {maghwI'} unknown]
>> magh betray, act against (S26) (v)
>> 'ur commit treason (v)
De'vID:
> Surely the difference is that a {maghwI'} is a "traitor (betrayer)",
> whereas an {'urwI'} is a "traitor (one who commits treason)". The former
> leaves open who or what has been betrayed, whereas the latter specifies
> that it is a ruler, state, or other political entity (someone or something
> the betrayal of whom or which constitutes treason).
>
> The fact that the English glosses are identical obscures this difference,
> but it's clear in the Klingon.
That's pretty much what I imagine, though I don't like relying just on the English gloss for {'ur}. We do have examples for {magh} are:
<numagh>
[They've betrayed us. (Untranslated)] ST6
ngoQvam luchavmeH ghawran maghpu' be'nI'pu'
To this end, the sisters have acted against Gowron...
in order to gain power. S26
wo' Damagh 'ej bIHegh
Die betraying the Empire. MKE
Another difference that strikes me - again based on the gloss - is that {"ur} "commit treason" may not take an object whereas {magh} "betray" does, but we'll have to wait for more examples to be certain. Are there any in the {paq'batlh}?
--
Voragh
Ca'Non Master of the Klingons
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
Tlhingan-hol@kli.org
http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
