[tlhIngan Hol] does {-be'} negate the {-vIp} taboo?

Lieven L. Litaer levinius at gmx.de
Thu Apr 8 03:14:30 PDT 2021


Am 08.04.2021 um 10:56 schrieb De'vID:
> That argument cuts both ways, though.

Yes, of course. Klingon is not math, but it' also not logical. We have
some people on this list who also insist on the rules and technically,
as long as we don't have a statement from Maltz, we really cannot be
sure about any kind of interpretation.

But still... look at those examples from TKD and their explanations:

{pIHoHvIpbe'qu'} "we are NOT afraid to kill you"
"The first word above might be used after an enemy challenged the
bravery of the speaker. "

Honestly, do you really think it would be a taboo in such a situation to
tell your enemy that you're NOT afraid to kill them?

------

{pIHoHvIpqu'be'} "we are not AFRAID to kill you"
"The second might be followed by an explanation such as, "We are not
willing to kill you because we require your services."

Also here it says where to use it without any comment on being a taboo,
and I think there is no taboo in saying that one is not afraid to kill
someone. It's even a definite Klingon attitude: We are afraid of nothing!

------

{pIHoHqu'vIpbe'} "we are not afraid to KILL you"
"The third word would be used to emphasize killing, as opposed to some
other form of punishment."

Again, this is a very Klingon way of thinking. I've spent enough time
among Klingons to know that there is taboo ins aying sucha thing.

------

So after all, I see no reason to discuss about this thing having thse
examples. I know we cannot be sure 100%, but if this were a taboo
suffix, why is it used as an example for usage in normal situations. BTW
in most cases, when Okrand gave us incorrect phrases, he usually said
not use them or recommends only experienced users should do so. But no
word in thise case.

--
Lieven L. Litaer
aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany"
http://www.tlhInganHol.com
http://klingon.wiki/En/Hamletmachine


More information about the tlhIngan-Hol mailing list