[tlhIngan Hol] Some more from Maltz

Felix Malmenbeck felixm at kth.se
Mon Jan 1 14:10:56 PST 2018

Indeed; since the word "prophet" is often used to refer to a sort of messenger of the gods (a {Qun Duy['a']}, perhaps, or a {Qun QumpIn} (slightly tongue-in-cheek)), I would imagine that a prophet may or may not be a fortune teller depending on what that message contains, and a fortune teller may or may not be a prophet depending on their method of telling the future.

For example, a prophet who gives god-given advice about morality and reveals information about creation but reveals nothing of the future would not be a {tuch rutwI'}.
Meanwhile, somebody who uses astrology to tell the future would be a {tuch rItwI'}, but may or may not be a prophet, depending on your use of that word (and your/their views on astrology).

With both {tuch rItwI'} and {qut}, I wonder if the use of these words says something about whether or not the speaker believes them.
Does using the word {tuch rItwI'} to describe somebody suggest that you believe them, while calling them a {qutwI'} suggests that you don't?
Or does the addition of the "(suspected to be fraudulent)" to the definition of {qut} only reflect Maltz' own opinion on fortune-telling, while an astrologer might proudly admit to being a {qutwI'}? Sort of like the way that the word "homeopathy" is practically synonymous with pseudoscience in many people's minds while others swear by it.

> Okrand suggested a way to say "polite" in Klingon, using {DochHa'}.

Related words:

{yI'} - "speak in an honorable or respectful fashion"
{SeQ} - "be formal, be ritualistic, be ceremonial"
{Qut} - "be vulgar"
{tay} - "be civilized" (not certain if this would be used to describe individuals, societies, customs or all of the above)


From: tlhIngan-Hol <tlhingan-hol-bounces at lists.kli.org> on behalf of Lieven <levinius at gmx.de>
Sent: Monday, January 1, 2018 22:49
To: tlhingan-hol at kli.org
Subject: Re: [tlhIngan Hol] Some more from Maltz

Am 01.01.2018 um 22:34 schrieb Michael Roney, Jr.:
> Okay, so, I'm missing how this different from a religious prophet.
> Or is there a connotation or denotation that specifically prohibits this
> word from being used to refer to a religious figure?

I'm not sure, so I'll leave that to the experts. What I wanted to point
at is that the term {tuch rItwI'} should be seen more literally as a
"future-teller" or a "predicter". I think it would seem strange that if
you translate a bible verse and end up with "future-teller Jesus". To
me, the "prophet" from a bible sounds a bit like a holy person sent by
god or so, and that's absolutely unrelated to {tuch rItwI'}.

It may work, but I was only pointing that here, it's not really a
religious term as described in wikipedia

Lieven L. Litaer
aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany"
tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
tlhIngan-Hol at lists.kli.org

More information about the tlhIngan-Hol mailing list