[Tlhingan-hol] rup

[Will Martin]

Just to point out two things about Okrand’s “glosses”:

1. He never uses the infinitive form of a verb because Klingon doesn’t have an infinitive form.

2. He only uses parenthesis to impart meaning that is, well, parenthetical. He does not use them to distinguish between a word that has a single meaning or one that has multiple meanings. An example is:

baQ — be fresh, be just picked (fruit, vegetable)

baj — earn, (actively) work for

bertlham — end (of an opera, play, story, speech)

bIH — they, them (incapable of language)

The parenthetical verbiage gives us greater detail to narrow down the meaning from what might otherwise be likely interpreted without the addition. You wouldn’t use {baQ} to refer to a freshly picked nose, for instance. You wouldn’t use {baj} for someone passively getting a paycheck for just being there. You wouldn’t use {bertlham} to refer to the end of a street or the end of a rope. You wouldn’t use {bIH} to refer to a group of Klingons (unless you were trying to start a fight).

pItlh
lojmIt tI'wI'nuv



> On Nov 11, 2015, at 9:30 AM, qunnoQ HoD <mihkoun at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> thanks for replying. I thought too that "tax" was to be used only in the way of the "evil king" example. I just wanted to make certain.
> 
> > Hmm, I'm uncertain what you mean by "<<tax>> isn't within brackets". Are you looking at a digital version of the book?
> > Where this came from?
> 
> no,I'm not using a digital version. I was referring to the actual/physical book. maybe i didn't describe well what i meant to say.. I remember,when I was learning english,whenever there was a word which's meaning could be interpreted in two separate ways,then the explanation/clarification would follow the first word being contained in brackets. In our topic it would be something like :
> 
> rup (v) to fine, (to tax)
> 
> whenever on the other hand a word actually had two separate meanings,then it would be written as :
> 
> rup (v) to fine,to tax
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 4:08 PM, SuStel <sustel at trimboli.name <mailto:sustel at trimboli.name>> wrote:
> On 11/11/2015 8:40 AM, Felix Malmenbeck wrote:
> Hmm, I'm uncertain what you mean by "<<tax>> isn't within brackets". Are
> you looking at a digital version of the book?
> 
> When two different definitions are given for a word, it's often to help
> avoid ambiguity. As you say, the English word "tax" is ambiguous, but
> the addition of "fine" makes it clear which meaning of the word is intended.
> 
> It would be very surprising if the Klingon word had the same ambiguity,
> so I'd advise you to stick to the "evil king" use of the word.
> 
> On the other hand, "tax, impose a burden on" is really just another sense of the meaning of "tax, fine." I don't think its inconceivable to use {rup} in this sense, though it might be considered metaphorical.
> 
> -- 
> SuStel
> http://trimboli.name <http://trimboli.name/>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Tlhingan-hol mailing list
> Tlhingan-hol at kli.org <mailto:Tlhingan-hol at kli.org>
> http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol <http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Tlhingan-hol mailing list
> Tlhingan-hol at kli.org
> http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol/attachments/20151111/29abdcd9/attachment.html>