[Tlhingan-hol] do {vIttlhegh} become {ngo'} or {qan}?

[Rohan Fenwick]

ghItlhpu' De'vID, jatlh:
> When I saw {vIttlhegh ngo'}, I instinctively thought it should've been
> {vIttlhegh qan}:
> https://twitter.com/ghunwI/status/375061262540890113
> 
> But is my instinct correct? Which would you use?

For my part I would find {vIttlhegh qan} weird in any circumstances. {vIttlhegh ngo'} is really the only alternative for me.

In the other direction, though, I had an Ubykh proverb in my signature for a long time, of which the English translation was "Old roads and old friends will never deceive you". The problem is that English "old friend" in this circumstance doesn't really mean {jup qan}. Can one, therefore, talk about a {jup ngo'} - an old friend, one that one has known for a long time - as opposed to a {jup qan}, merely a friend who happens to be old?

I don't expect an answer, of course - this is a mere rhetorical consideration.

> I think my intuition is coloured by the Chinese correspondents
> (Chinese makes the same distinction between not-new-old and
> not-young-old as Klingon):
> 
> ngo' - v. be old (not new) -- 舊 (not 新)
> qan - v. be old (not young) -- 老 (not 青)
> 
> In Chinese, a time-worn proverb is described as old with age (老), not
> old due to lack or fading of novelty (which is what 舊 would imply).
> But the Klingon "old" pair may not work in exactly the same way as the
> Chinese.

Precisely. Using Chinese to guide understanding of Klingon is not fruitful. You're best off going to canon examples.

> Indeed, we know young Klingons don't describe new language as
> {chu'} or {Qup}, but as {ghoQ}.

In that instance there's also a difference of register that you need to consider as well. Is it really true that young Klingons don't *ever* describe new language as {chu'} or {Qup}? If they were speaking to someone from an older generation, say, would they necessarily still use the term {mu'mey ghoQ} for such a thing? Would they dare refer to the older person's slang as {Doy'} in front of their faces? I don't think so.

QeS
 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol/attachments/20130906/69a8c62e/attachment.html>