<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 10/28/2021 10:25 AM, mayqel qunen'oS
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAP7F2cLCsfELMKELiVLgU=-KbVnNUr=JTKa-pT5Axe1cKw86gQ@mail.gmail.com">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">ghunchu'wI':
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">Second, if you can't translate {vaj} as "thus",
you're probably using it wrong. I think you're using it wrong.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
You're right. After reading the replies of you and SuStel, I
understood why {vaj} can't be used this way.
And your comment reminded me something which someone had written to
this list quite some time ago, regarding the use of klingon words with
multiple meanings.
Someone had said, that whenever there's a klingon word with multiple
english meanings, then one way to see if you're using it correctly is
to check whether *each* of its' english definitions would make sense
for the purpose you want to use it.</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>That's true, but it's a little more than just substituting in
each of the words in the gloss to see if the sentence is still
grammatical. What you need to do is see what concept all of the
words have in common and understand that as the meaning of the
Klingon word.</p>
<p>So when you see a gloss like <b>vaj</b><i> so, then, thus, in
that case,</i> the important thing to see is that what these
glosses have in common is coming to a conclusion based on some
prior statement. That's what <b>vaj</b> means, regardless of how
you translate it into English.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAP7F2cLCsfELMKELiVLgU=-KbVnNUr=JTKa-pT5Axe1cKw86gQ@mail.gmail.com">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">So, (in our current case of {vaj}), unless it can be translated as
"thus" too, then its' use is obviously wrong.
However some time later, in another thread someone had suggested that
this approach can only be applied to klingon words with multiple
meanings which "overlap" each other; i.e. {vaj}, {Haw'} "flee/get
out", {tur} "carry out, conduct (a mission), perform (duties)", etc.
But when it came to klingon words with multiple definitions which
don't overlap, then one could use such a word to express only one of
its' english definitions, and context would clarify what exactly it is
that he actually means.
For example {ghargh} "serpent, worm"; there's no "overlap" between a
serpent (e.g. snake) and a worm, meaning that a creature can't
simultaneously be both a snake *and* a worm. But two people could use
the {ghargh}, one to say {'up gharghmey}, and another {mughIj
gharghmey} with the context clarifying that -in the first case- it is
worms which one finds disgusting, while in the second case the speaker
is describing his fear of serpents.</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>You're missing the point that serpents and worms have a number of
characteristics in common. Their shape and their movement are
similar.</p>
<p>Did you know that the modern English word <i>worm</i> used to
mean <i>serpent, snake, dragon, reptile?</i> That's why you'll
sometimes hear dragons called <i>worms</i> or <i>wyrms. </i>(Dragons
were also depicted as snake-like more often back then than they
are now.) The word <i>worm</i> (formerly spelled <i>wurm</i> or
<i>wyrm</i>) used to mean exactly what the Klingon word <b>ghargh</b>
means.</p>
<p>So there <i>is</i> overlap between serpents and worms. I believe
Okrand has even commented on this word, saying that originally he
meant <b>ghargh</b> to mean anything like a serpent or a worm,
just like the Old English word, but that when writers for <i>Star
Trek: The Next Generation</i> writing the episode "A Matter of
Honor" wanted a word for their newly invented plate of worms, they
found <b>ghargh,</b> coached the actors to mispronounce it as <i>gakh,</i>
and failed to notice the comma in the gloss, coming up with the
new thing called <i>serpent worms.</i> Okrand later retrofit this
mistake as <b>qagh,</b> accounting for both the mispronunciation
and the wrong meaning. I don't have a citation for this
information.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAP7F2cLCsfELMKELiVLgU=-KbVnNUr=JTKa-pT5Axe1cKw86gQ@mail.gmail.com">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">Anyways, I don't know how many people would actually agree with the
above way of approaching "multiple meaning klingon words", but I'm
sharing this because I find it to be an interesting approach, which
has helped me on numerous occasions make a choice as to which klingon
word I'd use and how.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>It's a good way to approach it, provided you remember that you're
not just substituting words but looking for the central concept
that all parts of a gloss point to.<br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
SuStel
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://trimboli.name">http://trimboli.name</a></pre>
</body>
</html>