tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Jan 28 09:03:14 2004

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: taghwI' jIH

d'Armond Speers, Ph.D. ([email protected]) [KLI Member] [Hol po'wI']

chepqu' wrote:
>> Hov ghajbe'bogh ram rur pegh ghajbe'bogh jaj!
>
> I think I heard this proverb in the Power Klingon tape, but I didn't
> recognize it until I translated it. I understand that this is a
> proverb, so the wording is already standard; but I find it confusing.
> I understand
> that -bogh is translated as who, whom, that, or which depending on
> how it is used. If I understand it well (I'm not sure), the part
> {pegh ghajbe'bogh jaj} translates to "a day which has no secret", but
> also can translate as "a secret which has no day". Likewise, {Hov
> ghajbe'bogh ram} translates to "a night that has no star", but also
> can translate as "a star which has no night".

Nope.  That would be reversing the subject and object, and {-bogh} can't do
that.

But there is ambiguity.  The other possible meanings are: "A secret which a
day doesn't have" and "A star which a night doesn't have."  Subjects and
objects (in Klingon) haven't changed; a day still doesn't have a secret and
a night still doesn't have a star.  It's just a question of focus.

{puq qIpbogh yaS}
The officer who hit the child.
The child who was hit by the officer.

In both cases, the officer is hitting the child.

> I once read something
> on a HolQeD about those ambiguities and how to solve them,

You use {-'e'} on the noun which is the focus of the clause.

{puq qIpbogh yaS'e'}
The officer who hit the child

{puq'e' qIpbogh yaS}
The child who was hit by the officer.

> but this
> proverb does seem ambiguous ("a secret which has no day resembles a
> star which has no night"). Am I missing something about this proverb?

Does it make sense now?

> chepqu' ne'

-- Holtej

Back to archive top level