[98152] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] Last X and testament?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Rohan Fenwick)
Sun Mar 9 06:39:41 2014
From: Rohan Fenwick <qeslagh@hotmail.com>
To: "tlhingan-hol@kli.org" <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2014 20:39:07 +1000
In-Reply-To: <338F1DB9-2400-45E0-87EA-39175315F42E@gmail.com>
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@kli.org
--===============3909412935571969849==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="_af97b94f-e61a-4f1a-8a22-47df0865926e_"
--_af97b94f-e61a-4f1a-8a22-47df0865926e_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
ghItlhpu' lojmIt tI'wI' nuv=2C jatlh:
> I feel certain that one of the functions of every House is to defend
> the interests of the House=2C including the property of all who die
> within it. I would not expect lawyers to be involved.
Lawyers need not be involved=2C but surely there is a way for a living pers=
on to directly place legitimate orders to be followed in the event of their=
death. Also=2C not only are all Klingons not born into Houses=2C but the i=
nterests of the House can be and often are overridden by dictates of the Hi=
gh Council=2C presumably acting under Klingon law=3B such events explicitly=
include at least some concept of legally-enforced property rights. The sec=
tion of KGT on "Societal Variation" (pp.36-43) includes a couple of relevan=
t passages:
"[T]here are clear distinctions between those with great wealth and influen=
ce and those with little or none. This sort of status is a matter of inheri=
tance." (KGT p.36)
"If the High Council determines an action to be dishonorable=2C not only ma=
y it remove the leader of a house from the Council itself=2C it may also se=
ize the house's lands=2C forces=2C and other holdings." (KGT p.38)
There's also the DS9 episode "The House of Quark"=2C in which Quark marries=
the Klingon woman Grilka to allow her to protect her late husband's proper=
ty long enough to plead extenuating circumstances to the Council and allow =
her to inherit=2C another indication that the Council is at least capable o=
f exercising jurisdiction over inheritance matters.
taH:
> There=92s never been a suggestion that any Klingon feels debt to
> follow the orders of the dead.
Azetbur's continued championing of the wishes of her late father Gorkon (ST=
6). Which isn't even orders=2C but she still feels that her father's wishes=
are worthwhile following. That his body is an empty shell says nothing abo=
ut his spirit.
> The whole point of winning a contest to the death is to be the guy
> still standing who gets to tell others what to do. When you lose such
> a contest=2C your pre-posthumus wishes don=92t linger longer than you did=
.
But your antemortem actions *do*=2C as indicated by the proverb I cited bef=
ore=2C and surely the giving of a lawful order before one's death for the b=
equest of one's resources is enough to constitute such an action.
> Succession is more important than property rights=2C since those who
> succeed make choices as to who defends what property for whom.
Succession and property rights in Klingon thought are both properly matters=
of inheritance=2C as KGT p.36 indicates=2C and if anything KGT p.38 indica=
tes that property rights are *more* the arena of law (being subject to null=
ification by the High Council in appropriate legal circumstances) than succ=
ession is.
> If a successor has challengers and the challenger wins=2C then there
> is a new successor=2C regardless of the wishes of the original leader.
Assuming that the appropriate traditions and laws have been followed=2C of =
course. The only clear example we have is the {bIreqtal}=2C but in that ins=
tance the vanquisher of the leader of a House must marry the dead leader's =
widow to lawfully become leader of that House. This is another instance in =
which the actions of a living person continue to play a role post-mortem: o=
therwise a woman whose husband dies should merely be treated as an unmarrie=
d woman=2C and has no special standing in terms of House politics.
> Who would defend the rights of orphans and widows and widowers?
> The House=2C not the law.
I imagine that Klingons' orders for the bequest of their estate after they =
die would normally be appropriately followed by most Houses=2C but that doe=
sn't mean that such orders haven't been given. Taking your example further=
=2C moreover=2C if the House acts dishonourably in dealing with the orphans=
and widows and widowers under its care=2C then =0A=
yes=2C the Council and thereby the law would step in=2C as judging of =0A=
dishonourable actions is a part of the Council's remit. Why should matters =
of inheritance be any different?
QeS
=
--_af97b94f-e61a-4f1a-8a22-47df0865926e_
Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<html>
<head>
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px=3B
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 12pt=3B
font-family:Calibri
}
--></style></head>
<body class=3D'hmmessage'><div dir=3D'ltr'>ghItlhpu' lojmIt tI'wI' nuv=2C j=
atlh:<br><div><div>>=3B I feel certain that one of the functions of every=
House is to defend<br>>=3B the interests of the House=2C including the p=
roperty of all who die<br>>=3B within it. I would not expect lawyers to b=
e involved.<br><br>Lawyers need not be involved=2C but surely there is a wa=
y for a living person to directly place legitimate orders to be followed in=
the event of their death. Also=2C not only are all Klingons not born into =
Houses=2C but the interests of the House can be and often are overridden by=
dictates of the High Council=2C presumably acting under Klingon law=3B suc=
h events explicitly include at least some concept of legally-enforced prope=
rty rights. The section of KGT on "Societal Variation" (pp.36-43) includes =
a couple of relevant passages:<br><br>"[T]here are clear distinctions betwe=
en those with great wealth and influence and those with little or none. Thi=
s sort of status is a matter of inheritance." (KGT p.36)<br><br>"If the Hig=
h Council determines an action to be dishonorable=2C not only may it remove=
the leader of a house from the Council itself=2C it may also seize the hou=
se's lands=2C forces=2C and other holdings." (KGT p.38)<br><br>There's also=
the DS9 episode "The House of Quark"=2C in which Quark marries the Klingon=
woman Grilka to allow her to protect her late husband's property long enou=
gh to plead extenuating circumstances to the Council and allow her to inher=
it=2C another indication that the Council is at least capable of exercising=
jurisdiction over inheritance matters.<br></div><div><br></div><div>taH:<b=
r>>=3B There=92s never been a suggestion that any Klingon feels debt to<b=
r>>=3B follow the orders of the dead.<br><br>Azetbur's continued champion=
ing of the wishes of her late father Gorkon (ST6). Which isn't even orders=
=2C but she still feels that her father's wishes are worthwhile following. =
That his body is an empty shell says nothing about his spirit.<br><br>>=
=3B The whole point of winning a contest to the death is to be the guy<br>&=
gt=3B still standing who gets to tell others what to do. When you lose such=
<br>>=3B a contest=2C your pre-posthumus wishes don=92t linger longer tha=
n you did.<br><br>But your antemortem actions *do*=2C as indicated by the p=
roverb I cited before=2C and surely the giving of a lawful order before one=
's death for the bequest of one's resources is enough to constitute such an=
action.<br></div><div><br></div><div>>=3B Succession is more important t=
han property rights=2C since those who<br>>=3B succeed make choices as to=
who defends what property for whom.<br><br>Succession and property rights =
in Klingon thought are both properly matters of inheritance=2C as KGT p.36 =
indicates=2C and if anything KGT p.38 indicates that property rights are *m=
ore* the arena of law (being subject to nullification by the High Council i=
n appropriate legal circumstances) than succession is.<br><br>>=3B If a s=
uccessor has challengers and the challenger wins=2C then there<br>>=3B is=
a new successor=2C regardless of the wishes of the original leader.<br><br=
>Assuming that the appropriate traditions and laws have been followed=2C of=
course. The only clear example we have is the {bIreqtal}=2C but in that in=
stance the vanquisher of the leader of a House must marry the dead leader's=
widow to lawfully become leader of that House. This is another instance in=
which the actions of a living person continue to play a role post-mortem: =
otherwise a woman whose husband dies should merely be treated as an unmarri=
ed woman=2C and has no special standing in terms of House politics.<br></di=
v><div><br></div><div>>=3B Who would defend the rights of orphans and wid=
ows and widowers?<br>>=3B The House=2C not the law.<br><br>I imagine that=
Klingons' orders for the bequest of their estate after they die would norm=
ally be appropriately followed by most Houses=2C but that doesn't mean that=
such orders haven't been given. Taking your example further=2C moreover=2C=
if the House acts dishonourably in dealing with the orphans and widows and=
widowers under its care=2C then =0A=
yes=2C the Council and thereby the law would step in=2C as judging of =0A=
dishonourable actions is a part of the Council's remit. Why should matters =
of inheritance be any different?<br><br>QeS<br></div></div> </di=
v></body>
</html>=
--_af97b94f-e61a-4f1a-8a22-47df0865926e_--
--===============3909412935571969849==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
Tlhingan-hol@kli.org
http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
--===============3909412935571969849==--
