[Tlhingan-hol] "I have kept my word of honor"

[De'vID]

Voragh:
>> A stock phrase then, if not an idiom. But if it's literal, to which
>> rules is the poet referring? {jIlay'ta' 'ej batlh jIpabta'} "I have
>> promised and I have followed the rules honorably" to my ear implies
>> that the promise has been made honorably (and in the proper form for
>> such things {batlh pab}), not that the promise was necessarily
>> fulfilled.

SuStel:
> It does seem ambiguous. "I promised and honorably followed the rules of
> making promises" or "I promised and honorably followed the rules of keeping
> promises."

Perhaps, to a Klingon mind, the rule of making promise implies keeping
them, and the only way to honourably {pab} after one has {lay'} is to
carry out the task that was promised.  That is, perhaps {pab} can, in
the context of vows (and if prefixed by {batlh}), mean "fulfill
(promises, vows)" as an extension (restriction? or addition?) to
"follow (rules)".

Voragh:
>> AFAIK our only other example of {lay'} "promise" is:
>>
>>    not lay'Ha' tlhIngan
>>    No Klingon ever breaks his word. TKW

SuStel:
> This is interesting. It's "undo a promise," not "go against a promise" or
> "fail to fulfill a promise." It says the promise exists and then is undone,
> not that something is done that is contrary to the promise, which is usually
> what is meant by the English "break his word."

It seems to me that a promise is seen as a rule that is in effect for
a Klingon from the time that it is made ({lay'}) to the time that it
is fulfilled ({batlh pab}).  To act against the rule, or to fail to
obey it, is to {lay'Ha'}.

That is, with respect to a vow or promise, a Klingon can be in one of
three states (he can be modeled as a finite state machine :-)  -- I
hope the diagram is clear):
0     --{lay'}-->     under promise --{batlh pab}--> fulfilled promise
    <--{lay'Ha'}--

In state 0, the promise does not apply (or no longer applies) to him.
When he makes the promise ({lay'}) or vow ({'Ip}), he moves into a
state where he is subject to a rule that says he must perform the
task.  He can either complete the task, in which case he reaches the
state of having fulfilled the promise (via {batlh pab}); or he can
fail, in which case, he returns to the state where the rule no longer
applies (via {lay'Ha'}).

If a warrior promises to kill Molor, but allows him to live when he
has the chance to kill him, {lay'Ha'}; he has "mispromised".  If he
fails to kill Molor because he is killed first, again, {lay'Ha'}.
Only if he succeeds in killing Molor does he {batlh pab}.

I think the finite state machine model neatly shows the difference
between a noun-based (state-based) language like English, and a
verb-based (transition-based) one like Klingon.  In English, you talk
about a "promise" and what happens to that promise: it is made, it is
fulfilled, it is broken.  In Klingon, you talk about the actions
themselves rather than the results on an auxiliary noun:
make-a-promise, follow-the-rule-of-fulfilling-a-promise, mismake-(or
unmake)-a-promise.

If the above models how Klingons think of promises, then {not lay'Ha'
tlhIngan} would mean that Klingons never backtrack in the above
diagram, that is, once they have {lay'}, they will always {batlh pab}.
 (Whether that is true or not is another story, but that's the claim,
anyway.)

-- 
De'vID