what is the opposite of {vItlh}
Back in the day (as americans say) we were saying: {'ul law'} much electricity {'ul puS} little electricity Then the game changed, and we begun to say: {'ul vItlh} much electricity But what was obviously forgotten was how to say "little electricity". ~ Dana'an
On 9/7/2021 7:58 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
Back in the day (as americans say) we were saying:
{'ul law'} much electricity
{'ul puS} little electricity
Then the game changed, and we begun to say:
{'ul vItlh} much electricity
But what was obviously forgotten was how to say "little electricity".
*'ul vItlhHa'.* Here's how I visualize *-Ha'.* It's like a vector. If you imagine a verb having a direction, adding *-Ha'* means to deflect it from its normal direction. So if you imagine *jatlh* /speak/ as having a "direction of communication," an imaginary direction representing progressing speech, then *jatlhHa'*/misspeak/ is a deflection from the normal direction of *jatlh.* If you imagine *par*/dislike/ as having an emotional direction, the more this way the more dislike, then *parHa'*/like/ is a 180-degree turn. *-Ha'* isn't just negation (that's *-be'*). Negation wouldn't be a vector; it would be a stoppage of the imagined motion. *-Ha'* isn't just the opposite. It's a deflection from the normal course. So *vItlh* can clearly be imagined as having a direction. Most of us would imagine that direction as upward. *vItlhHa'* would be a deflection from upward, and for most contexts it would make the most sense to be a turning to downward. Hence, if *vItlh* is /high (in quantity, intensity),/ then *vItlhHa'* is /low (in quantity, intensity)./ -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
As an aside, seeing 'ul law' alongside 'ul vItlh, my immediate reaction is to interpret the former as "high current/amperage" (or "a big charge" if, say, a capacitor is being discussed) and the latter as "high voltage." What the actual Klingon terminology is, I can't say. ~mIp'av
FYI we do have one example of {‘ul law’} from SkyBox S32: chIch vay' 'oy'moHmeH 'oy'naQ 'ul law' tlhuD 'oH Painstiks... emit a highly-charged shock for the express purpose of inflicting pain. (S32) Compare this with how Okrand used {HoS law’qu’}: HoS law'qu' luch law'qu' je lo' Duj nuH pat Hub pat je A huge amount of the ship's power and technology is devoted to its weapons grid and defensive systems. (SP3) HoS law'qu' natlhmo' So'wI' Due to the tremendous energy drain of a cloaking device... (S33) Here is how {vItlh} was described at qepHom 2017: (qepHom 2017): {vItlh} means “be high, great (in quantity, size, intensity)”. It's used for things that are measurable or quantifiable but not necessarily countable. So you'd use it for things like speed or distance or the price of something: {Do vItlh} “high velocity”, “chuq vItlh} “great range, great distance”. You wouldn't use {law'} in these instances. For things you can count (like people) (as opposed to things you can measure using units of measure, like length or speed), you'd use {law'} almost all the time. But you'd use {vItlh} if the number of whatever it is you're talking about is higher than normal or greater than before or greater than what was expected. So if you were referring to a lot of warriors, you'd most likely say {SuvwI'pu' law'}. But if the high number of warriors is somehow important, if it's the point you're trying to make and not just an added fact, you'd use {vItlh}. You'd use it if you're not saying merely that there are a lot of warriors, but that the quantity of warriors is particularly high (higher than usual, higher than expected, higher than some other similar group of warriors, etc.). So it sounds like L'Rell used {vItlh} correctly in referring to the large number of people who died in battle (more than expected, more than before, etc.). Note that the exact number of warriors (or whatever) doesn't matter (and doesn't have to be stated). The idea is that the high number of warriors you're talking about is somehow noteworthy (the number of warriors who died is greater than the norm for this sort of military unit, for example). L’Rell’s line from DISCOVERY: Heghmey DISIQpu'. 'a DIvI' Hegh vItlh law' Heghmaj vItlh puS. We have suffered losses but the Federation has suffered far more. (DSC/Qov "Battle At the Binary Stars") {vItlh} was used three times in the NASM Bell X-1 text: tera' jaj wa'maH loS, jar wa'maH, DIS wa' Hut loS Soch, puvDI' BELL X-wa', DoDaj vItlh law' wab Do vItlh puS. Do patlhvam chavta'bogh muD Duj wa'DIch moj 'oH. X-wa' 'or SepjIjQa' muD beq CHARLES E. "CHUCK" YEAGER HoD. Do patlh vItlhqu' chavta'. qaStaHvIS wa' rep, vaghvatlh javmaH loS qelI'qam lenglaH, wabDo wa' vI' pagh jav. YEAGER be'nal vanmeH, muD DujvaD "GLENNIS 'IH" pong YEAGER. "On October 14, 1947, the Bell X-1 became the first airplane to fly faster than the speed of sound. It was piloted by U.S. Air Force Capt. Charles E. "Chuck" Yeager who named the aircraft Glamorous Glennis in tribute to his wife. [...] He reached a speed of 1127 kilometers per hour (700 miles per hour), or Mach 1.06 at an altitude of 13,000 meters (43,000 feet)." [I’m missing a bit of text. If anyone can supply it I’d be obliged.] -- Voragh _____________________________________________________________________ From: tlhIngan-Hol <tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org> On Behalf Of Ed Bailey As an aside, seeing 'ul law' alongside 'ul vItlh, my immediate reaction is to interpret the former as "high current/amperage" (or "a big charge" if, say, a capacitor is being discussed) and the latter as "high voltage." What the actual Klingon terminology is, I can't say. ~mIp'av
Thank you all for taking the time to reply. After reading the messages so far, I understand how we can use the {vItlhHa'} as an opposite to the {vItlh}. But this now raises another question.. {vItlh} has the opposite of {vItlhHa'}, but the {law'} has the opposite of {puS}. So what would be the difference between {puS} and {law'Ha'}? Or between {law'} and {puSHa'}? What would be the difference between let's say {SuvwI' puS} and {SuvwI' law'Ha'}? ~ Dana'an
On 9/8/2021 8:10 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
Thank you all for taking the time to reply.
After reading the messages so far, I understand how we can use the {vItlhHa'} as an opposite to the {vItlh}. But this now raises another question..
{vItlh} has the opposite of {vItlhHa'}, but the {law'} has the opposite of {puS}. So what would be the difference between {puS} and {law'Ha'}? Or between {law'} and {puSHa'}?
What would be the difference between let's say {SuvwI' puS} and {SuvwI' law'Ha'}?
Well, again, I don't think *-Ha'* means merely "the opposite of." *law'Ha'* would mean something like "a quantity that has gone in a different direction that simply being many." I don't know that that has much meaning. Not every possible combination of suffixes has to be meaningful. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
participants (4)
-
Ed Bailey -
mayqel qunen'oS -
Steven Boozer -
SuStel