[tlhIngan Hol] New Words from DIS 2889

[SuStel]

On 1/29/2020 6:47 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
> jIH:
>> If we talk on the phone, and I say to you {DaH paq mu'mey vIjatlh},
>> then according to the newly revealed Ca'Non, the*only*  way this is
>> understood is, that I'm holding the book reading from the inside.
> lieven:
>> You cannot always reverse such info.
>> It never sai that it ONLY means reading from a book.
> I'm afraid this confuses me..
>
> Aren't we supposed to worship without question the words of maltz,
> kneeling in cult-like reverence before them, with nothing but the
> purest and unflinching loyalty ? Aren't they the holiest of holies,
> not to be defied, falsified, or willingly strayed from ?

No! Certainly not! Question everything. Test everything.

We have a concept of "canon," which is simply the body of information 
Okrand has given us about Klingon. It is the only source of information 
on Klingon that is considered valid. What is NOT canon is our 
interpretation of that body of information. We must constantly examine 
our understanding of canon.

> If we read {Suvchu'pu' SuvwI'}, then wouldn't we be forced to*only*
> understand that the "warrior fought to the death" ? Or could it mean
> too that, "the warrior fought perfectly, but without finally having
> dying in combat" ?

We are told that *Suvchu'* means /fight to the death,/ so wherever we 
see that word we should interpret it that way. (I disagree with Lieven 
that *Suvchu'* means /fight to the death/ when it refers to what 
Klingons think but just /fight perfectly/ when it refers to what Terrans 
footballers might think. This is the language of the Klingons, with 
their cultural attitudes built in, so when we get a remark like "from 
the Klingon point of view," it should be taken as an explanation of why 
the phrase means what it means, not as a suggestion to deviate when 
dealing with another culture. If Terran footballers were to say 
*Suvchu'* to refer to their games, I imagine any Klingon listening would 
interpret this as hyperbole or be thinking, "You keep using that word. I 
do not think it means what you think it means.")

We are not told that the only way to say /read aloud/ is with the phrase 
*paq mu'mey jatlh,* or that the only think *paq mu'mey jatlh* means is 
/read aloud./ What we are told is that a good way to translate /read 
aloud (e.g. from a book)/ is with *paq mu'mey jatlh.* Do not take that 
beyond what it actually says.

-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20200129/692a68ba/attachment-0015.htm>