tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Feb 15 03:33:20 1994

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

Old post



juppu'wI'vaD charghwI'vo':

qaStaHvIS jarvam jaj wejDIch, tlha'bogh mu'mey jatlh "Nick Nickolas" 'ej 
mu'tlheghmeyDaj vIyajbe'. lupvetlh jabbI'IDvetlh vIpol. DaH vIHaDqa' 
'ej vay' mISmoHtaH mu'tlheghmeyDaj 'e' vIQubtaH. DIp Delbe' "ba'"
'ej DIp tlha'laHbe' "ba'" vIjatlh. jang "Nick":

> maj, nuq 'oHnIS DIp 'o' wot boQubmeH Saja'chuq, 'ach yajHa'ghach Dun'e' 
> ghajbogh charghwI' tI'lu''a'?

tlha'bogh mu'tlhegh jatlh 'e' chaq Hech "Nick":

# DIpmey DelmeH wotmey, DIpmey tlha'laH wotmeyDaq ngaSbogh nuq 
# 'e' yajHa'qu' charghwI' 'e' vIQub.

[Lacking an equivalent of "which", I choose "what" and assume that it is
acceptable form to say "what which is contained among verbs" to mean 
"which verbs". I'm open to better suggestions. Also, does it strike 
anybody else that {-mey} sounds like Pig Latin? (Yet another language 
for Okrand to have to assure people he did not use as a base for Klingon.)]

"great" rap "Dun" 'e' Sov "Nick", 'ach cha' Dochmey rur "great" 
'ej wa' Doch neH rur "Dun". "QaQqu'" rur "Dun" 'ej "tInqu' rurbe' "Dun".
"wonderful" rap je "Dun". "Dun" yajHa'law' "Nick".

jatlhtaH "Nick":

> taHtaHghach wot 'oH wa' wot, 'e' wuqmoHlaHbe' ghu'vam: bong mughtahghach 
> mu'Daq "BE" tu'lu'.

"This situation cannot cause to decide that one verb is a continuation verb:
Accidentally in the word "BE" is found." [I find the {-moH} and {'e'}
combination here to be quite confusing. It seems like the situation 
cannot cause the one word that is a continuation word to decide something.]

tlha'bogh mu'tlhegh jatlh 'e' chaq Hech "Nick":

# mu'ghomDaq "be" ngaSbe'mo' neH DIvI' Hol Dop, DIp DellaHbe' wot 
# net wuqlaHbe'.

jatlhtaH "Nick":

> 'e' wuqmoHlaH wot HechtaHghach (meaning) pagh latlh je.

nuqjatlh? jIyajbe'chu'. jIyaj 'e' vItaghbe'. jInID:
"The verb's meaning's zero and another one cannot cause that to decide."
"Either the verb's meaning cannot cause that to decide or 
another one [missing verb] also."
"The verb, the meaning, zero and another one cannot cause that to decide."
wejpuH.

jatlhtaH "Nick":

> taHtaHghach wot 'oHba' "ba'", vaj DIp 'o'Daq 'oH lo'laH.

ghIHqu' mu'tlheghvam 'e' vIQub. vIchup:

# DIp DellaH "ba'", vaj DIp tlha'laH "ba'".

"taHtaHghach" vIparqu'. moHqu' mu'vam.

> 'e' tembe' 'ay' 4.4.

jIQubqu'pa' jIQochbe', 'ach DaH jIQubqa' 'ej jIQoch.

       I've concluded that "be sitting" is a quality or state of being. 
"Sit" is NOT a quality or state of being. "ba'" means "sit". It does NOT
mean "be sitting" [TKD, page 80]. It is an action. Every example
in 4.4 involves a verb whose English definition includes the word "be".
There are enough words in TKD with "be" in their definition to recognize the 
pattern that Okrand intended THESE words and ONLY these verbs to be used 
adjectivally.

       This is not a position I have consistently held in the past, 
but rereading 4.4, I must conclude that only verbs which include "be" 
in their English definitions can be used adjectivally. Just because it
would be convenient for "ba'" to mean "be sitting" instead of "sit" if
we choose to place it after a noun, that does not make it so.

       Furthermore, after rereading TKD 3.2.2, I think the arguement is weak
that these adjectival verbs could be nominalized with the {-wI} suffix. 
One may be a {ba'wI'} because one "does" sit, but one cannot be a {tInwI'}
because being big is not something one "does". It is something one "is".

       Basically, I've come to believe that these "be" verbs are actually
adjectives that can be used as verbs, given that Okrand was trying to
come up with a language that did not, at a root level, include the verb
"to be" and this was a device toward that end. The verb "to be" connects
nouns to other nouns, or it connects nouns to adjectives, so if we cover 
one with pronouns and cover the other with adjectival verbs, we don't need 
"to be". Trying to put an alien spin on the idea that adjectives which
follow nouns can be used as verbs if they preceed nouns, he turns it around
and says that they are REALLY just VERBS and if you want to use them
ADJECTIVALLY, then put them AFTER the nouns (so they don't get mistaken
for verbs being used adjectivally).

       Given this perspective, I really think that the "be" verbs are in
an entirely different class from other verbs. I was tempted at one point
to believe that some verbs promised to waffle back and forth across 
the line of action versus stative, like "vIH", which means 
"move, be in motion". The former sounds active. The latter sounds stative. 
Looking closer, I see that he instead intended to indicate that the verb is
the intransitive version of "move" instead of the transitive one. The second
definition is not so much an alternate definition as a clarification
to disambiguate an ambiguous English verb. There is no English-to-Klingon
entry for "be in motion" or "in motion". Instead, the English entry for
"move" reads "move, be in motion" to remind you not to use it in the 
transitive sense. This is a more useful kind of verb, since you can 
always make it transitive with {-moH}.

       I'm sure this opinion is likely to be controversial, but then, what
else is this list for if not for exploring the controversial? I look forward 
to further opinions.

       BTW, does anybody know what a {mughato'} is? It was one of those words
in TKD that stumped me, until I checked out "Worlds of the Federation" by
Shane Johnson. This is one VERY obscure reference, given that the book is
not indexed, except by planet name, and has no meaningful table of contents 
and there is no reference to anything about mugatos that I can find in 
the Star Trek Chronology or the Star Trek Companion, so apparently these 
creatures were never used in a script for either TNG or TOS.

       For the curious, they are large, white apelike creatures with dorsal
spines and a cranial horn. They are monogamous, mating for life. "Little 
or no provocation will spark an attack by this hostile creature, whose bite 
is highly poisonous and fatal if untreated. [No wonder the Klingons
find them interesting.] The only antidote for the mugato 
bite is the proper application of the native mako root, which has 
the ability to draw the toxin out of the human nervous system."
So what about the Klingon nervous system?

       These beasts live on Neural, a.k.a. Zeta Bootis III, and apparently
"direct Klingon interferance" violated the Prime Directive and introduced
the peaceful inhabitants to the concept of war. Now there are five
major factions, each feuding with the other four. Between that and the
mugatos, it sounds like a great place for shore leave...

       Also {SermanyuQ} apparently refers to a place referred to in a
conversation between Spock and Checkov in "Trouble with Tribbles".
"Brittish astronomer John Burke of the Royal Academy maps the area of space 
including Sherman's Planet. This region is later the subject of a 
territorial dispute between the Federation and the Klingon empire."
Again, that's not in any index, but check out 2067 in the Cronology...
I accidentally found that while looking for mugatos...

charghwI'



Back to archive top level