felix malmenbeck,

bIjangtaHvIS, tlhIngan Hol Dalo'mo' jIbel. 'a 'op Doch DIpojnISbogh tu'lu'.

vaj..

felix malmenbeck:
> tlhInganpu' Sar law' Humanpu' Sar law' 'e' 
> vIHar.

Initially the law'/law' construction confused me, but finally I remembered that instead of the classic law'/puS, there are alternate versions such as the law'/law'. So, in this case the meaning obviously is "klingons are as varied as the humans". The choice of the double {law'} instead of a double {puS} obviously is made to express that both klingons and humans are "varied to a great degree". Instead of "varied to a small degree", which would be the case if we had a double {puS}.

felix malmenbeck:
> wa' nughHom'e' motlh vay', latlh nughHom'e' 
> motlh latlh.

This messed me up real good until I finally managed to figure it out. It must mean "as for one small society someone is usual, as for another small society another is usual". Although I still can't understand why you used {nughHom} instead of {nugh}.

felix malmenbeck:
> lommey meQmoH 'op. lommey meQmoH 'op.

"Some make corpses burn. Some make corpses burn". I don't understand why you wrote {meQmoH} instead of just {meQ}. Also why repeat the same sentence twice ?

felix malmenbeck:
> rIQwI'pu'vaD lom 'ay'Du'chaj nob HeghDI' 'e' 'Ip
> 'op 'ach nobQo' latlhpu' law'.

Isn't here the {law'} on the {latlhpu'} somewhat redundant ? Doesn't the {-pu'} inherently mean "many" ? So, why say {latlhpu' law'} instead of just {latlhpu'} ?

felix malmenbeck:
> taQ ghaH net ja'.

Is {ja'} a verb of speech ? If yes, don't the same rules apply for it, as they apply for {jatlh} ? And if yes, then how is it possible to quote what someone said, through the use of {net} ?

felix malmenbeck:
> *DaqS* qeng puqloD HeghmoHpu'DI' chISwI', 
> lom meQmoHta' qeng. wa' jaj chISwI' HoH 'ej 
> tIqDaj Sop 'e' 'Ip.

Although I have no idea who or what the {chISwI'} and the transliterated {DaqS} is, I can understand the sentence; however I can't understand why you chose {HeghmoH} over {HoH}. And I wonder too, with regards to the choice of {meQmoHta'} over a simple {meQta'}.

qunnoq

On 31 Jul 2017 7:25 pm, "nIqolay Q" <niqolay0@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 11:11 AM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
SKI: At a Star Trek Next Generation episode, two Klingons have died,
and Picard asks the Klingon captain, what he is to do with the bodies.
Then the Klingon captain replies: "They are empty vessels; treat them
as such".

As a result of this scene, I don't think that Klingons would utilize
elaborate sarcophaghi, in order to dispose of corpses which -according
to their beliefs- are nothing more than empty shells.

Maltz did say that Klingons didn't use sarcophagi anymore.

Also, I think it's important to remember that real cultures aren't totally monolithic and homogeneous, even if that's how they like to present themselves. In existing show canon, there are a number of variations on Klingon funerary practices. There's the {Heghtay}, where you hold the eyes open and scream. There's the {'aQvoH}, where you stand watch over the corpse. A "Klingon mummification glyph" is referenced in Star Trek 4, so clearly they did that at some point. And nobody held open Chancellor Gorkon's eyes after his assassination. It's not a major contradiction, but rather simply a sign that Klingons (much like, say, humans in Starfleet) are more diverse than they seem (or want to seem) to outsiders. MO has touched on this idea occasionally: acknowledging that an empire could have room for another language like Klingonaase (see http://klingonska.org/canon/1996-08-rt.txt), the opening to The Klingon Way describing how seemingly-contradictory proverbs can still fit in the same culture, and the whole section in KGT about the myth of Klingon conformity.



_______________________________________________
tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org
http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org