tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Apr 23 08:45:04 2004

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: Headless relatives and {SuDbogh Dargh 'ej wovbogh}

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

Voragh:
> >A common Okrandian solution to problems like would be to consider it {no'
> >Hol} and, therefore, evidence of an older stage of the language, not
> >particularly relevant to 23rd/24th century {ta' Hol}.

QeS lagh:
>It's tempting, isn't it? :D I'll quote myself here (from the Common Grammar
>Problems Wiki page):
>
>"{yoHbogh matlhbogh je SuvwI'}: While somewhat of a sneaky way out, we can
>say that this construct probably is... an older form of Klingon - much that
>is ritual about battle is also associated with no' Hol..." (Common Grammar
>Questions And Problems - Relative Clauses: What Possibilities?)

We know "officially" that {je} - and possibly other noun conjunctions - was 
used differently in an older stage of the language:

   Normally, an idiom follows the rules of Klingon grammar (for example,
   the verb takes the prefix appropriate to the meaning intended), but
   occasionally, one will be grammatically aberrant. Thus, the phrase
   {mIv je DaS} (literally, "helmet and boot") is used to mean fully
   dressed, as for a ceremonial affair (as in {mIv je DaS tuQ ra'wI'}
   ("The commander wears helmet and boot"that is, "The commander is in
   full dress uniform"). Normally, the conjunction {je} ("and") would be
   expected to follow the second noun (here, {DaS} ["boot"]), but in
   this phrase, it does not. The grammatically correct {mIv DaS je} also
   means "helmet and boot," but it would not be used in the sense of full
   dress. The sentence {mIv DaS je tuQ ra'wI'} would mean simply "The
   commander is wearing a helmet and a boot" (or, since the plural need
   never be overtly indicated, perhaps this would mean "The commander is
   wearing a helmet and boots"). How the odd grammatical construction
   came to be is not known with certainty, but it probably is based on
   an older form of the language. The fact that the expression for "full
   dress" includes the word {mIv} "helmet" also suggests that the phrase
   has been in use for a long time, since helmets are no longer commonly
   part of Klingon attire.  [KGT 107-08]

And:

   When it comes to grammar, the younger generation is innovative as well.
   One of the more noteworthy characteristics of their speech is the
   placement of conjunctions joining nouns ({je}, "and"; {joq}, "and/or";
   {ghap}, "either/or"). In standard Klingon grammar, the conjunction
   follows the last noun of the conjoined set; for example, {naQjej 'etlh
   taj je} ("spear, sword, and knife"; literally, "spear, sword, knife and")
   or {tlhInganpu' romuluSnganpu' ghap} ("either Klingons or Romulans"; that
   is, "Klingons Romulans or"). Instead of putting the conjunction after the
   last noun of the phrase, younger Klingons are often heard putting it before
   the final noun: {naQjej 'etlh je taj, tlhInganpu' ghap romuluSnganpu'}.
   This is a common young person's error, and teachers seem to be constantly
   correcting it, with reasonable success. It is interesting to note that in
   earlier stages of the language (and the form of language still used in
   many rituals and in some forms of writing), at least under certain
   circumstances, the conjunction did indeed precede the final noun, meaning
   it was not always a mistake to use that phrasing. [KGT 139]

OTOH... there's the clearly traditional phrase {wa'maH cha' pemmey wa'maH 
cha' rammey je} ("twelve days and twelve nights") from the Kahless cycle, 
where {je} is used in the "modern" or standard manner (cf. KGT p.121).



-- 
Voragh
Ca'Non Master of the Klingons

Back to archive top level