[Tlhingan-hol] Klingon Word of the Day: waQ

[Gaerfindel]

On 10/25/2012 12:10 PM, Steven Boozer wrote:
> quljIb:
>> {tlhIngon Hol vIyaj 'e' DawaQ.} "You obstruct my understanding of
>> Klingon." (lit. "You obstruct that I understand Klingon language.")
>>
>> Is this a valid use of the word?  Or is {waQ} meant to be used in a
>> more literal way?  Example: {lojmIt waQ.} "It obstructs the door."
> AFAIK there are no examples of this verb used in canon.  (Are there any in the paq'batlh?)
>
> For comparison we have the similar verb {bot} "prevent, block" which has been used:
> This raises the question:  What's the difference between {waQ} "obstruct" and {bot} "prevent, block, etc."?
matlh wItlhobnIS.

My best guess--and really that's all it is--would be that {waQ} is used 
when there is an inanimate obstruction {lojmIt waQ Sor HoHpu'}, while 
{bot} is used when there is an animate object *actively* involved 
{lojmIt bot mIl'oD}.
> We have a possible antonym {Huv} "be clear, not obstructed" which AFAIK has also not appeared in canon.  (Someone - was it Sustel? - once translated John Ford's "naked stars" as *{Hovmey Huv} which I works very nicely.)  And there's also {poS} "be open/opened" vs. {SoQ} "be closed/shut" and {ngaQ} "be locked, be sealed, be secured, be fastened".
>
> All of which doesn't answer quljIb's question.  My own rule-of-thumb WRT ambiguous verbs unattested in canon is to assume the literal/physical meaning over a metaphorical one until we have further examples or clues from Okrand.
A wise choice.

~quljIb