tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Aug 24 02:25:47 2003

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: Grammar Question

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

From: "Mark E. Shoulson" <[email protected]>
> Mark E. Shoulson wrote:
>
> >
> > It also *may* call into question whether or not it's sensible to
> > "have" a forehead. "Have" is a notoriously polysemous word in English
> > (you "have" a book, a test in Biology on Thursday, and a cold in three
> > very different ways, and that's just the first few that came to
> > mind).  {ghaj} is given as "have, possess", leading me to think it
> > leans closer to the "possession" meaning of "have" than others.  One
> > does not "possess" one's forehead (you might possess another one,
> > though, say mounted on your wall).
>
> You know, just after mailing the last letter, I realized that there's
> probably canon for {ghaj} and body parts.  Isn't there something about
> 22 ribs, an expression meaning "not quite all there"?  I'm too lazy to
> look it up; one of you canon-jockeys out there can find it faster.
>
> I don't think this actually changes what I was saying; I still think
> it's cleaner to use {tIn ghIchwIj} than {ghIch tIn vIghaj}.


The idiom is described on KGT pp. 126-127.  One example sentence is /cha'maH
cha' joQDu' ghaj qama'/ "The prisoner has twenty-two ribs," meaning the
prisoner is a little strange (Klingons normally have 23 ribs).  If someone
is actually missing a rib and you wants to avoid referencing the idiom, you
may say /wa' joQ Hutlh ghaH/ "He/she lacks one rib."  Thus, one may /ghaj/
"have" and /Hutlh/ "lack" ribs, and perhaps other body parts.

I don't think it changes what you say at all, for the simple reason that
there's no good way to verb-ize the idiom.  "Your mother has a smooth
forehead" can turn into "Your mother's forehead is smooth," but "The
prisoner has twenty-two ribs" has no equivalent transformation.  There's no
verb meaning "have twenty-two of something," or anything like that.  It's
possible that in cases where you CAN use a verb other than /ghaj/, you're
supposed to.  Who knows?

It's not conclusive proof, of course, but it does show that there are at
least a couple of instances where one may "have" or "lack" a body part in
Klingon.  I would have no grammatical objection to anyone who wanted to say
/Quch Hab ghaj SoSlI'/.

SuStel
Stardate 3644.9

Back to archive top level