On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 12:46 PM, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:
Yes. But why can't it be both, just like the English word "move" or "maneuver"?
I think you're drawing the distinction between what I'll call an abstract "move-template" and a concrete "move-action" here, so I'll use that terminology below.
To me it's because the gloss is "fighting technique" not "fighting move". A "technique" is a description of how to do something (a move-template), not the actual doing of it (move-action). For that we have verbs like {chaQ}, {ngol}, {lev}, {pup}, etc. Those are words for the "move-actions". I don't see why these options have to be exclusive? Your character
perhaps knows the *{ro' tonSaw'}, *{HoS tonSaw'}, and *{maS tonSaw'} (these are his move templates which he can execute), and as the opening move maybe you execute the *{ro' tonSaw'} (this is the first move-action actually executed).
The character could use the {ro' tonSaw'} (move-template) to execute a hit with the fist (move-action), or a {HoS tonSaw'} (move-template) to send a fireball (move-action) at his opponent. He used the knowledge gained from learning the {tonSaw'} to make his limbs move but he didn't DO the {tonSaw'}. (After he learned a fighting technique, he used the fighting technique to do X, he didn't do the fighting technique). In English you can both learn a move and do a move (learn a technique and take an action based on it), but I don't see why this slang meaning of "move" should be carried over to Klingon.
The source for how I've interpreted {tonSaw'} comes from you, actually. You reported that Maltz suggested {tonSaw' Qav} for "The Final Reflection" under the belief that a "reflection" is a type of move (move-template) in the game of klin zha. But if it's important to preserve the "mirror" connotation of this move, he suggested {neSlo' tonSaw' Qav}. The fact that you can use {Qav} to describe a {tonSaw'} suggests that, under this meaning, it is a "move" in the move-action
sense.
To me this is "the final mirror fighting technique", it's the last technique (move-template) that people playing the Reflective game would use to win it. It's not the physical action of picking up a piece and placing it (move-action). {tonSaw'} are used during fighting/playing, but the "move-actions" done while following the techniques are not the techniques themselves, they are the results of the techniques. It's like how knowing how to plant a tree (move-template) and planting a tree (move-action) are not the same thing in my mind.
Moving a piece in Chess could be considered a {tonSaw'}?
I would think so, if making "the final reflection" (the finishing move in a game of klin zha) is to use {[neSlo'] tonSaw' Qav}, then moving a piece in chess seems to me to be exactly a {tonSaw'}.
I'd argue that the way in which the pieces move would be {tonSaw'mey} (move-templates), but physically moving a piece isn't (move-action). In Monopoly the verbs {HeD} and {jaH} are used to refer to physically moving the playing pieces (go back 3 spaces, move to go). Those would be "move-actions".
{notlh tonSaw'lIj} suggests that that meaning might also work, i.e., "the technique you're trying to use (your move-template) is obsolete". Although, I suppose that this also makes sense under the other interpretation, i.e., "the actual thing you're doing (your move-action) is obsolete". They effectively amount to the same thing.
If your action is based on an obsolete technique, then I could see how people would extend the obsoleteness to the action too, although I'd wrinkle my nose at that usage. This is all very subjective though, as something that is obsolete for one person may be new for someone else. When it comes to fighting, it would mean that I know techniques that can be used to nullify the techniques you know without you knowing the new techniques I know.
I don't think Kahless used only one move in the entire fight. (Or maybe he did? I don't have the paq'batlh with me right now to check.) It's just that the particular paragraph with {ngIq tonSaw'} is focused on just that one final move (move-action).
Speaking of paq'batlh, there's more references to {tonSaw'} in it. I don't have the English with me though, but I've included my own translations. Here's the lines that surround the "Single move" block: tugh qaStaHvIS rep wejDIch molor cha' tIqDu' DuQchu' qeylIS 'ej lel ngIq tonSaw' lo' 'ej tIqDu' lel ngIq tonSaw' lo' 'ej quvqa' ngIq tonSaw' lo' 'ej rIn may' (Soon while the third hour is happening, Kahless stabbed molor's two hearts and took them out. he used a single technique and he took out the hearts, he used a single technique and he became honored again, he used a single technique and the battle was finished) After looking at this expanded text, this all makes more sense. The move-action has been described which is made up of two actions (Stabbing two hearts and taking them out), but it then referred to as a single technique (which makes sense to be, since a technique could be a collection of different physical actions (like a judo lock isn't just X, it's X, then Y, then Z done in sequence)). If {tonSaw'} referred to the the "move-actions" themselves that Kahless took, it would have to be plural because he stabbed and then took out (you can't push in and out at the same time! :D). There's also this (which comes before the above passage), showing that {moQbara'} has many {tonSaw'mey} that can be displayed, and that {tonSaw'} by itself can be considered plural: maghomchuqqa'DI' SuyInbejmeH DaH moQbara' tonSaw'mey Sa'agh (When we once again meet one another, in order that you all certainly live, now I will display the techniques of the Mokbara) muvchuqmeH yabmaj porghmaj je muvchuqqa'meH porgh qa' je moQbara' tonSaw' DIlo'jaj (In order for our body and our mind to join one another, in order for the spirit and the body to join one another, may we use the techniques of the Mokbara) I think the rest of the message about cleaning/feeding cats is mainly correct. The only thing I would add is that when we talk about having multiple items but we only end up doing something to a single one of them, {ngIq} most likely shouldn't be used and a number should be used instead ({vagh vIghro' vIghaj. wa' vIghro' vISay'moH} - "I have 5 cats. I clean a single one"). qurgh