tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Nov 19 01:22:03 2006

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

• Index by Date
• Index by Thread
• Index by Author

Re: I should kill you where you stand

MorphemeAddict ([email protected])

• From: [email protected]
• Subject: Re: I should kill you where you stand
• Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2006 04:21:41 EST

In a message dated 11/18/2006 11:36:03 PM Central Standard Time, 
[email protected] writes:

> suvwI'pu' batlh:
>    
>   "I should kill you where you stand" is a prototypically Klingon sentiment 
> that seems difficult to actually say in Klingon as we know it.  There doesn't 
> appear to be a mechanism for relative clauses that are not the subject or 
> object of the main verb, and there also doesn't seem to be a way to express 
> moral obligation.  One could imagine there being a type-2 verbal suffix for 
> this, but none is attested.
>    
>   It seems to me that Klingons would express obligation in terms of honor, 
> so I came up with the following:
>    
>      QamtaHghach DaqlIjDaq qaHoH quvvaD vIneH
>    
>   I considered {qaHoH 'e' poQ quv}, but that seems too strong; if honor 
> demands something, an honorable Klingon not only should do it, he/she _must_ do 
> it.  Therefore I preferred the slightly less compelling {quvvaD vIneH}, on the 
> assumption that {quvvaD} expresses an idea similar to "for honor's sake".
>    
>   I'm not sure about {QamtaHghach DaqlIjDaq} (or {QamtaHghachlIj DaqDaq} ?). 
>  If this doesn't work, then perhaps
>    
>      hIHoH quvvaD vIneH pa' biQamtaHvIS
>   nuq boQub
>    
>   Hoch Satlho' 'ej Savan
>    
>   mIq'ey
> 

DaH qaHoHnIS!

lay'tel SIvten

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: I should kill you where you stand
    • From: Alan Anderson <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: Dragons and ketchup
• Next by Date: Klingon WOTD: tengchaH (noun)
• Previous by thread: I should kill you where you stand
• Next by thread: Re: I should kill you where you stand
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

Back to archive top level