[tlhIngan Hol] relative strength of the epithets

[mayqel qunen'oS]

There's the person who hits the horn of his car calling you an a-hole
as soon as the traffic lights go green.

There's the person who lies to your boss about you, in order to steal
your promotion.

There's the person who steals someone else's life savings.

There's the person who lies in court sending an innocent man to jail.

And there's the person who commits crimes too heinous to even describe.

Who is the petaQ, who is the yIntagh, who is the toDSaH, who is the
Qovpatlh, and who is the taHqeq ?

On a thread which started on november 06 2015 with the title "tlhIngan
cursing", charghwI' had written:

> Sex has nothing to do with the phrase, “Don’t f with me,” or “Don’t f with that lawn mower.”
> Sex has nothing to do with “The meter of this poem is all f-ed up” or “The tip of this
> screwdriver
> is all f-ed up."
> Sex has nothing to do with the single word the mechanic utters when he drops his wrench
> down the silo onto the nuclear warhead, setting off a spark that ignites the leaking hydrogen
> fuel tank.
> So, understanding that the f word refers to the act of having sex won’t help you understand
> most of the ways the word is used. Likely, Klingon curse words are like that.

And charghwI' was right. Perhaps the actual meaning of an epithet
isn't of importance. But what *is* of importance is its strength in
relation to the other epithets. When is it to be said, and in
reference to who ? (or is it to whom ? ah, forget it, I don't care..)

I think, that in the same way we've been given the strength of each
one of the verbs of fighting, we needed to be given the gravity of
each epithet in relation to the rest.

~ Qa'yIn