<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div class="">I agree that we don’t know which is “more” useless. Mostly, we know that {lI’be’} is a verb that can be used adjectivally, and {tu’HomI’raH} is a noun. I think it would be odd to refer to {tu’HomI’raH Duj}, though perhaps Okrand has done so in canon and like most references, it escapes me. I’d see that meaning that it’s a noun-noun phrase, like “useless thing’s ship” or “ship of a useless thing (or things)”.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Meanwhile, {Duj lI’be’} has clear meaning.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">If I wanted to use {tu’HomI’raH} to describe a ship as useless, I’d say {tu’HomI’raH ‘oH Dujvetlh’e’}.</div><br class=""><div class="">
<div dir="auto" style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; text-decoration: none;">charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan<br class=""><br class="">rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.</div><div style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; text-decoration: none;" class=""><br class=""></div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"></div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
</div>
<div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Jul 8, 2019, at 1:06 PM, SuStel <<a href="mailto:sustel@trimboli.name" class="">sustel@trimboli.name</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class="">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" class="">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" class="">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 7/8/2019 12:31 PM, nIqolay Q wrote:<br class="">
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:CAG84SOvwCN6tP4_NtuYDfScjW8SsHx-0H0bN9m4-t=YfMNEqjw@mail.gmail.com" class=""><br class="">
<div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif" class="gmail_default">(<b class="">tu'HomI'raH</b> also seems like it
might be a stronger sentiment than <b class="">lI'be'</b>, since it's a
very long root word, and Klingons tend towards conciseness. Even
<b class="">lI'be'wI'</b> would be shorter. I feel like something's
uselessness would have to be pretty noteworthy to warrant all
those syllables.)</div>
</blockquote><p class="">I don't think this is a worthwhile argument to make. It is not
the case that words with fewer syllables are less strong than
words with more. I'd be more persuaded by an argument that words
with fewer syllables are more common than words with more
syllables, but even then we have words like <b class="">Ha'DIbaH</b> and <b class="">men.</b>
For all we know, the etymology of <b class="">tu'HomI'raH</b> is that
there were two guys named <b class="">tu'Hom</b> and <b class="">'I'raH</b> who
were particularly <b class="">lI'be',</b> and got a word named after them.
Or maybe the word just sounds more aesthetically appropriate to a
Klingon ear.<br class="">
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
SuStel
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://trimboli.name/">http://trimboli.name</a></pre>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br class="">tlhIngan-Hol mailing list<br class=""><a href="mailto:tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org" class="">tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org</a><br class="">http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org<br class=""></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></body></html>