[tlhIngan Hol] The problem with po'

[De'vID]

On Wed, 25 Mar 2020 at 16:28, Lieven L. Litaer <levinius at gmx.de> wrote:

> One other nice example I remember of my first qep'a' was the usage of
> {ghaj}, where a native English speaker asked a native German speaker in
> a restaurant {nuq Daghaj?}. The German Klingonist was confused, because
> he literally understood "What do you possess?", while the English
> speaker was thinking of the English way where "have" can be used meaning
> "eat": "I'll have a Pizza".
>

chab DaSopchugh vaj chab DaghajlaHtaHbe'.


> That's why {ghaj} is defined as "have, possess". It's ONE meaning,
> defined by two words.
>
> And this is an important point when learning languages, any language.
> You cannot always see one word by itself, it's the idea that is
> important. (I can report from experience, roughly speaking nine languages)
>

English is particularly bad for overloading the same verb with too many
meanings. If you look up "do" or "run" in a good dictionary you'll get a
page or more of definitions and examples.

In Klingon, {qet} "run, jog" is the kind of running you do with your legs,
not trying to get elected into a political office or filling a bath with
water.

-- 
De'vID
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20200327/4eb54711/attachment-0016.htm>