chabal tetlh list of something desired tu'HomI'raH tetlh list of something useless wa'maH yIH lI'be' ten useless tribbles Duj lI'be' useless ship tu'HomI'raH Duj useless ship (or "ship of something useless" ?) Can someone explain, what's the difference (if any) between {Duj lI'be} and {tu'HomI'raH Duj} ? ~ hkhjkhj
On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 12:15 PM mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
Can someone explain, what's the difference (if any) between {Duj lI'be} and {tu'HomI'raH Duj} ?
*tu'HomI'raH Duj *doesn't necessarily imply that the ship is useless. It could apply to a ship carrying useless things, or a ship owned by a useless person (*vIqawchu'chugh*, the use on the Klingon CD shows *tu'HomI'raH* can be used as an insult). (*tu'HomI'raH* also seems like it might be a stronger sentiment than *lI'be'*, since it's a very long root word, and Klingons tend towards conciseness. Even *lI'be'wI'* would be shorter. I feel like something's uselessness would have to be pretty noteworthy to warrant all those syllables.)
On 7/8/2019 12:31 PM, nIqolay Q wrote:
(*tu'HomI'raH* also seems like it might be a stronger sentiment than *lI'be'*, since it's a very long root word, and Klingons tend towards conciseness. Even *lI'be'wI'* would be shorter. I feel like something's uselessness would have to be pretty noteworthy to warrant all those syllables.)
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 *Ha'DIbaH* and *men.* For all we know, the etymology of *tu'HomI'raH* is that there were two guys named *tu'Hom* and *'I'raH* who were particularly *lI'be',* and got a word named after them. Or maybe the word just sounds more aesthetically appropriate to a Klingon ear. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
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)”. Meanwhile, {Duj lI’be’} has clear meaning. If I wanted to use {tu’HomI’raH} to describe a ship as useless, I’d say {tu’HomI’raH ‘oH Dujvetlh’e’}. charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
On Jul 8, 2019, at 1:06 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 7/8/2019 12:31 PM, nIqolay Q wrote:
(tu'HomI'raH also seems like it might be a stronger sentiment than lI'be', since it's a very long root word, and Klingons tend towards conciseness. Even lI'be'wI' would be shorter. I feel like something's uselessness would have to be pretty noteworthy to warrant all those syllables.)
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 Ha'DIbaH and men. For all we know, the etymology of tu'HomI'raH is that there were two guys named tu'Hom and 'I'raH who were particularly lI'be', and got a word named after them. Or maybe the word just sounds more aesthetically appropriate to a Klingon ear.
-- SuStel http://trimboli.name <http://trimboli.name/>_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
participants (4)
-
mayqel qunen'oS -
nIqolay Q -
SuStel -
Will Martin