tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Aug 25 10:59:30 2003

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: Grammar Question

Steven Boozer ([email protected]) [KLI Member] 

Mark E. Shoulson:
> >> 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.

SuStel:
>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'/.

lughchu' SuStel.

As a "canon jockey", here's what I have for {ghaj} "have, possess":

   nIn 'ar wIghaj
   How much fuel do we have (left)?  TKD

   pIch vIghajbe'
   It's not my fault. TKD

   De' pegh vIghaj
   I have secret information. PK

   Hov ghajbe'bogh ram rur pegh ghajbe'bogh jaj
   A day without secrets is like a night without stars. PK

   butlh ghajbogh nuv'e' yIHo'
   Admire the person with dirt under his fingernails. TKW

   cha'maH cha' joQDu' ghaj qama'
   The prisoner has twenty-two ribs
   (idiom: suggesting that the prisoner is somehow a bit strange) KGT

   qaStaHvIS wa'maH puq poHmey, wo'rIv betleH ghaj qorDu'Daj
   Worf's bat'telh has been in his family for ten generations. S8

   tlham ghaj
   "have gravity"
   [slang for have structure, order" (KGT 165)]

and its antonym {Hutlh} "lack, be without, to not have (KGT)":

   butlh DaHutlh
   You lack dirt under your fingernails. TKW

   HuH DaHutlh
   You lack gall (bile). TKW

   Hom Hutlhbogh ghab
   ghab that lacks bone  KGT

   wa' joQ Hutlh ghaH
   He/she lacks one rib.  KGT

   Huch DaHutlh
   You lack money. KGT

   DarSeqmey DaHutlh
   You lack money ("You lack darseks"). KGT

   nab Hutlh 'ach vang
   He/she lacks a plan, but he/she takes action (i.e. He/she improvises; 
cf. Degh). KGT

   tera' poH jaj wa', jar wa', jaj loSDIch, DIS wa'-Hut-Hut-chorgh:
   HovpoHvetlh latlh nab yIHutlh
   Save this Stardate: Sunday, January 4, 1998.  (STX)

   quv Hutlh
   lack honor (KGT 155)

   quv Hutlh HoHbogh tlhIngan 'ach qabDaj 'angbe'bogh
   A Klingon who kills without showing his face has no honor. TKW

   'ang'eghQo' quv Hutlhbogh jagh neH ghobtaHvIS ghaH
   Only an enemy without honor refuses to show himself in battle. TKW

But the "clincher" is

   Quch DaHutlh
   You lack a forehead. KGT

Which Okrand comments on:

   "The remark 'You lack a forehead' would be considered extremely offensive
    to a Klingon, calling into question his or her very identity." (KGT 193f)

Thus, if you can {Hutlh} a {Quch}, then you can {ghaj} it too.  (We know 
that {ghaj} and {Hutlh} are, in fact, exact opposites:  According to canon, 
can either {Hutlh} or {ghaj} dirt [under fingernails] {butlh} and ribs 
{joQ}.  Also note the extended definition in KGT.)

It appears that this pair is somewhat polysemous in Klingon as well.  In 
addition to body parts and other tangible objects, one can {ghaj} 
blame/fault {pIch}, information {De'} or gravity {tlham}; one can {Hutlh} a 
plan {nab} or honor {quv}.  {ghaj} can also be used metaphorically - or is 
that poetically? - to refer to a day "having" secrets and a the night 
"having" stars.


> > 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}.

Agreed.  Using the quality as a predicate verb is certainly much neater.




-- 
Voragh
Ca'Non Master of the Klingons

Back to archive top level