[tlhIngan Hol] A crucial necessity

[mayqel qunenoS]

and now, lets go deeper into this rabbithole..

lets think of a word with only one meaning; lets take the word {yav}.

ask yourselves: to a klingon, what does this word mean ? and the answer is
{yav}. As soon as a klingon hears this word, instantly he will *feel* its
meaning.

but what if a klingon hears {Qu'} ? Surely he won't translate it to any
other language, because to him {Qu'} is {Qu'}. He will rather *feel* the
moment that he hears it, all the possible meanings of it, but he will feel
them as one.

We may have used 5 different words, in order to describe to ourselves its
meaning, but to a klingon the meaning of {Qu'} is just {Qu'}; a {Qu'}
which epitomizes the sum of our english explanations for it.

And so, here lies the pearl, which we need to understand. Here lies another
essential necessity we need to understand..

We must not strive to remember a multitude of alternate english
explanations, for a klingon word. We need to take every possible
explanation, throw it in the blender/mixer of our mind, and then "digest"
the "juice" of this word. So, that when he hear the {Qu'} or the {vay'},
our thought will not become fragmented over a multitude of alternate
meanings, but it will rather *feel as a whole*, what this word is actually
supposed to mean.

qunnoH
ghoghwIj HablI'vo' vIngeHta'

On 13 Nov 2016 1:33 pm, "mayqel qunenoS" <mihkoun at gmail.com> wrote:

> If one is to look at his dictionary, he will surely see that often, for a
> single klingon word there are several english ones given in the explanation
> of that word.
>
> example 1: {Qu'} duty, quest, mission, task, chore
> example 2: {vay'} somebody, something, anybody, anything, someone
>
> If we put the dictionary aside, and examine ourselves, then probably we
> will realize one disturbing event:
>
> Those of us, who regularly write klingon, tend unconsciously to associate
> such words with only one of their meanings and forget the rest. For
> example, I may tend to associate {Qu'}, only with "duty", and ignore the
> meaning of "quest".
>
> Or -even worst-, we tend to think that such words possess only one
> meaning. For example we tend to think that {vay'} means only "someone",
> forgetting its additional meaning of "something". I still remember some
> time ago, writing {vay'} in the context of "something", only to be
> instantly corrected that it means "someone".
>
> The worst mistakes take place not when you're trying to learn something,
> not when you consider yourself a beginner. The worst mistakes and
> misconceptions are settling in your mind, as soon as you believe you know
> something..
>
> So, the crucial necessity we must be keeping in mind, is that just because
> we tend to use one word, with just one of its multiple meanings, this
> doesn't mean that this word doesn't have additional interpretations as well.
>
> To forget this, or even worst ignore it, is to shove down other people's
> throats our personal preferences, and embarass ourselves by our own
> persistent stubborness.
>
> qunnoH
> ghoghwIj HablI'vo' vIngeHta'
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20161113/2239dad5/attachment.htm>