[tlhIngan Hol] expressing "again we wouldn't be able"

SuStel sustel at trimboli.name
Thu Sep 26 07:45:26 PDT 2019

On 9/26/2019 10:24 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
> SuStel:
>> Let's assume the -be' applies only to the -laH. Not able, resume, eat. This might mean we resume being not able to eat
>> maSopqa'laH means we are able to resume eating or we resume being able to eat.
> So, if I understand correctly, one of the possible interpretations of
> the word {maSopqa'laHbe'} is with the suffix {-qa'} acting solely on
> the suffix {-laH}. Right ?

You're trying to draw me into saying something stronger than I intend 
it. *-qa'* doesn't act solely on *-laH.* The word as a whole has the 
subject resuming something and the subject being able (or not) to do 
something. Canon shows us that it's not always as simple as applying 
each non-rover suffix only to the root verb, and it's not always 
possible to see each suffix as applying to the entirety of what came 
before it. At some point you have to see that Klingon doesn't get as 
precise as that. It's not like a computer program following an exact 
sequence of steps to evaluate an expression to a single return value.

/paq'batlh/ has a line, *chaq batlh bIvangqa'laH*/You might have a 
chance to make amends./ Literally, it means /You can take action 
honorably again./ Or does it mean /You again can take action honorably?/ 
Or does it mean /You can honorably take action again?/ More importantly, 
does it even matter? Is not the idea expressed anyway? It certainly 
makes all kinds of sense in the /paq'batlh, /where Kahless's brother 
Morath realizes he was wrong to fight Kahless and Kahless says this to 
him in forgiveness.

Here's another: *tlhInganpu' tlhabqa'moHmeH*/[to make the Klingon 
people] self-sufficient once more,/ literally /in order to cause 
Klingons to be free again./ Or is it /in order to again cause Klingons 
to be free?/ (The idea behind this line is that the Klingon people 
themselves will make the Klingon people free once more, so what they did 
once the could do again.) Again: does it matter? You end up in the same 
place, and the context makes the meaning unquestionable.

I really think you need to back off of these super-precise analyses. 
You're dropping below the resolution of the language.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20190926/66e7d15b/attachment-0003.htm>

More information about the tlhIngan-Hol mailing list