Re: "have mercy" idiomatically

["William H. Martin" <whm2m@server1.mail.virginia.edu>]

On Sat, 28 Sep 1996 21:19:03 -0700 Steven Boozer 
<sboozer@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote:

[Lots of good canon examples deleted -- majQa'!]

> >Here's one final reason that this sentence makes sense: since "mercy" is a
> >noun, how else are you going to use it?  There is no Klingon verb "be
> >merciful."

pung poQ jeghwI' 'ach pung vInobQo'. pung vIqengchugh vaj mupujmoH pung. 
pung vIqelbe'nIS! nargh jeghpu' 'e' chaw' pung. jeghpu'lI' HoSmoH 
punglIj. pung vIneHbe'. chojeychugh 'ej choHoHbe'chugh, mutIch punglIj.

Is that enough to show that there are many ways to use {pung} besides 
just {ghaj}? I'm not arguing against {ghaj}. I think there is enough 
canon to justify its use. It's just that this statement that there 
appears to be few alternatives is likely inaccurate. I doubt any of the 
above are too idiomatic. I think all can be uncontroversially understood.

The main problem I have with {ghaj} is that it is so... so... boring. 
Nothing HAPPENS. Also, if I really want you to be kind to me when I am 
vulnerable, it seems odd to ask you to "have mercy". I don't want you to 
"have mercy". I want you to GIVE mercy. I want you to act as a result of 
your mercy. If you just hold mercy to yourself, who knows WHAT you are 
likely to do with ME...

[Sorry. Got a little carried away on one of those weird perspectives on a 
common idiom...]

charghwI'
 
> Assuming, of course, that Klingons would even say such a thing. {{;-) 

Good point.
 
> Voragh

charghwI'