tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Aug 07 23:26:15 2003

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

ghuHmoH

David Trimboli ([email protected]) [KLI Member] [Hol po'wI']

I believe I've found an instance of canon evidence that demonstrates my
interpretation of -moH, that "subject causes object to verb."

-----
SkyBox card S31: Hegh bey

When a Klingon warrior dies or is killed, other Klingons may perform a
ceremonial howl or yell as part of the Klingon death ritual.  The eyes of
the fallen Klingon are opened and other roar in a great crescendo.  This
yell is victorious in nature, rather than mournful and also serves to warn
the other dead that a Klingon warrior is coming.

HeghDI' tlhIngan SuvwI' pagh tlhIngan SuvwI' HoHlu'DI' Heghtay lulop latlh
tlhInganpu'.  Heghtay luloptaHvIS chaH chaq bey SeQ lujach.  Heghpu'bogh
tlhIngan mInDu' lupoSmoHlu'.  beyHom bey bey'a' jachtaH latlh tlhInganpu'.
yay 'oS bey.  'IQ pagh.  Heghpu'bogh latlhpu' ghuHmoH bey.  ghoS tlhIngan
SuvwI' maq.
-----

The key sentence here is the penultimate one.  First, /ghuH/ "prepare for,
be alerted to" is definitely a transitive verb.  This is evidenced both in
the definition, and in canon: TKW p. 56, /tlhIngan quv DatIchDI' Seng
yIghuH/ "When you insult a Klingon's honor, prepare for trouble."

Next, the sentence has a subject and object.  The subject is /bey/ "howl."
The object is /Heghpu'bogh latlhpu'/ "the other dead."  The complete
sentence, /Heghpu'bogh latlhpu' ghuHmoH bey/, is translated by Okrand as
"[The yell] serves to warn the other dead [that] . . . ."

Notice the "that" in the translation.  This is an /'e'/ in Klingon, but we
don't see one here.  If I were to accept the Ha'quj theory, we should expect
to see */Heghpu'bogh latlhpu'vaD 'e' ghuHmoH bey/.  We don't.  What we see
instead is "The yell causes others who have died to be alerted to
(something)" (to put it in Okrand's /HIQoymoH/ terms).

I conclude that the object of the complete verb /ghuHmoH/ is the person or
thing doing /ghuH/, not the thing they are /ghuH/ing.

This exactly parallels the /ghojmoH/ example.  By this canon example, we
know that one can /ghojmoH/ a person who learns something.  ghojwI'
ghojmoHlu'bej.

-----

One further comment.  I talked with Mark about this on the MUSH earlier
today, and he commented that he found my sentence, /yaS vIghojmoH; tlhIngan
Hol ghoj/, "I teach the officer Klingon" to be "wordily overcautious" (or
was it "overcautiously wordy"?).  I disagreed, pointing out that we often
see multiple sentences combined in Klingon to produce a concept.  Now, with
the /ghuHmoH/ example, we see that Okrand has used something very similar to
my construction.

The final two sentences are really a single concept.  The yell warning the
dead and the declaration that a Klingon warrior is coming (notice the likely
erroneous use of /maq/ as a verb of saying, a fact that Okrand hadn't
"discovered" at this point, or the omission of /'e'/ as the object of /maq/)
are one action, one thing that happens.  The yell IS the declaration.  Two
sentences, side-by-side, are all that are required to make the concept.
(And compare with the otherwise unattested noun construction /beyHom bey
beyHa'/ "roar in a great crescendo"--what a wonderful construction!)

So, because there was no place for an /'e'/ on the verb /ghuHmoH/, a second
sentence was pushed against the first, making the complete concept.  If we
change terms, you'll see that my original construction is no wordier than
Okrand's own example.

yaS vIghojmoH jIH; Hol ghoj ghaH
I teach the officer the language.

latlhpu' ghuHmoH bey; yadda jatlh 'oH
The howl alerts the others that yadda.

No, it doesn't use /ghuH/ in both sentences, but it doesn't have to.  (By
the way, I changed /maq/ to /jatlh/ to use a now-known valid word of
saying.)  When I add pronouns to everything for explicit subjects, we see
that the constructions have exactly the same number of words to each express
a single concept.

I conclude by this evidence that my /ghojmoH/ construction is no more
overcautiously wordy than Okrand's /ghuHmoH/ construction.

-----

And now for some speculation:

KGT p. 153 mentions the word /DISmoH/ means "cause to confess."  This is
described as a standard equivalent to the slang /luH/ "cause [someone] to
confess, cause [someone] to reveal a secret."  The slang word /luH/ is used
transitively in the example, and it seems likely to me that one may simply
substitute /DISmoH/ in wherever you see /luH/.  The example slang sentence
is /jav luHpu' 'avwI'/.  No mention is made of any unusual grammar, just
slang words.  This leads me to believe that the equivalent standard sentence
would be /qama' DISmoH 'avwI'/.  NOT */qama'vaD [HeS**] DISmoH 'avwI'/.  (**
Or whatever.)

Furthermore, the word /peghHa'moH/ is also used on that page.  However,
given the tricky nature of /pegh/, it's not worth mentioning beyond that.
Likewise with /mevmoH/ on p. 154, although this is glossed as "cause
[someone] to stop," and /mev/ is glossed right there as a comparison:
"[someone] stops."

Another example from KGT is /DoHmoH/ "drive back" (from /DoH/ "back away
from, back off, get away from."  Unfortunately, this word is not used in a
sentence.

And let's not forget those /-'eghmoH/ examples.

-----

I'm back to being pretty darned sure that /yaS vIghojmoH; tlhIngan Hol ghoj/
is the right way to do this.

SuStel
Stardate 3600.7

Back to archive top level