tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Feb 13 14:53:00 1998

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: KLBC: "to be"



Chakotay writes:
> I ran into a slight grammatical problem ;-)

What goes around comes around: I see that someone else has jumped on 
this post and given you a bizarre answer.  There hasn't been to much 
of this in my tenure as Beginners' Grammarian, but it looks like 
people think I've gone soft.  Everyone who knows better than to 
answer a KLBC before me, take two steps back and cover your ears.

NOW TO THE REST OF YOU!  If your name is not Qov, DO NOT answer a 
post that begins with the letters "KLBC" or which is clearly from a 
beginner new to the list, and asking for help with the Klingon 
language.  If you figure that your Klingon language ability is of a 
standard that you should be a beginners' grammarian, please write to 
~mark and apply.  Else hold onto your send keys and give me a chance 
to do my job.  You do no one any favours by sending incomplete or 
incorrect information to people who are confused in the first place. 

Now, to this post.

> Klingon the verb "to be" is often left out in things 
> like "I'm stupid" {jIQIp} because "stupid" is also a verb that 
> means "to be stupid"

It's no so much a matter of the verb to be being left out, as the 
fact that there isn't one.  

>... but with some things that just 
> doesn't work.
> "I'm a fool" {qoH jIH} will be easily understood when "to be" is 
> left out, but when it gets more complicated the whole structure of 
> the sentence can become unclear.

It's not left out.  That's just what it means.

You haven't given an example of the a sentence whose structuure 
becomes unclear, so I can't help you clarify it.  You did read the 
whole of 6.3 to see how to say things like:

taghwI'pu' ghojmoHwI' ghaH Qov'e'
Qov is the beginners' teacher.

If you want more convoluted:
mISwI'pu' boQbogh ghotvetlh qej'e' jIH
I am that grumpy person who assists the confused.

Not unclear.  Just Klingon.  yIlaj.

> so, my question is, is there a Klingon verb that means "to be"?

The answer is no.  Explicitly no from Marc Okrand.

- Qov


Back to archive top level